Were they actually violent?

Head of SNCC, but not the founder. One of the founders, I would say.

This section effectively lays out the events that lie at the origins of BLM. But does it tell me what the Black Lives Matter movement is?

You start off strong, with a style that is forceful and direct, but not too formal--well suited to the medium. Towards the middle of the paper, as you describe some of the details of the Civil Rights Movement, it's not completely clear to me where you're going, as the connection to BLM isn't made clear. On the other hand, the comparison of the two pictures is quite striking, and well done. You end on an interesting point. Do you think a new medium (or media) will be enough to change public discourse?

Do you think this difference is reflected in other differences between the two movements?

So are you presenting the events in this paragraph as earlier examples of police brutality?

You make a nice analysis, based on a historical overview, with some clear conclusions. You answer some questions but in so doing raise other questions. I don't think anyone would dispute that change only comes if people protest, so it seems to me that the other two factors--leadership, and economic and social opportunities--are most critical. One key question I'm left with: you write, "Society must present economic and social opportunities for the group," but that creates a chicken-and-egg problem. Disadvantaged groups can't gain advances without having opportunities, but without making advances, they will never get opportuntities. So how to get things started?

I'm not sure if I would describe the post-WWII civil rights movement as focused on "economic fairness." Economic issues tended to take center stage later, starting in the 1960s; before that, the focus was on dismantling Jim Crow.

In terms of presentation, the pictures are good. Also, the headings are effective, but if you're going to have headings you should visually differentiate them from the text (e.g., larger font, different font, bolded, etc.) There are also a few usage errors (e.g., improper form for possessives), so be sure to proofread carefully, especially when something it out in public like this. Always showcase your very best work--both in ideas and in presentation.

Divided leadership carried on into the early 20th century as well, with Carrie Chapman Catt vs. Alice Paul. Do you think that hampered women's rights then as well?

There is an interesting parallel here--what happens when you get legal rights "ahead of" corresponding social change. You mention it here, and also mentioned it in the paragraph on black civil rights. What conclusions can you draw from that?

It seems that you end up stressing leadership as a key to success in protest movements by disadvantaged groups, such as blacks and women. That's a very plausible and interesting answer. I would have liked to have heard more specific historical evidence (particularly as regards the women's movement--you mention leaders, but don't really discuss their role). The contrast with BLM today is also interesting. You mention it, but it's worth further exploration. My impression is that BLM has consciously eschewed the sort of Big Leader idea that MLK exemplified in the Civil Rights Movement. Do you think that is a good idea, or will it hamper their future success?

In terms of presentation, the picture is good, and I like the way you reference it in the text. Some hyperlinks to provide additional information about some of the points you make would be helpful. Also, the presentation could be a bit more polished (e.g., you don't capitalize "United States"--there are some other usage errors as well).

This would be a good place to include a supporting hyperlink, for more information & corroboration.

It seems to me there is some ambiguity in the argument here. The first part suggests a personal character dimension to poverty, while the second part suggests a social, structural dimension to poverty--sort of like Gilded Age vs. Progressive analyses of poverty that we discussed in the economic history unit. So where would you come down in interpreting the meaning of "personal desire"?

You start out with a clear statement of factors that make it possible for disadvantaged groups to advance, and then you move on to discuss some of the history of blacks and women (noting, in particular, the role of WWI and WWII, and the place of leadership, in advancing their causes). All that is good. What's missing is the connection between the two parts of the post. Does the history you outline in the second half of the post show that equal opportunity, higher education, and personal desire are the preconditions for advancement? Based on the history you provide, I might think that wars and leadership were most important.

In terms of writing and presentation, the language could be clearer or more precise at points; word choice could be stronger or more appropriate. The pictures work with the text, but captions explaining the connection more explicitly would be even better.

Many?

I think this is correct. So how does this connect with those three factors you mentioned at the start of the post?

Do you mean something like "led to the rise of black activist organizations"? "Uprising" makes it sound like there was open rebellion.

This is a well-argued thougtful piece about reparations. You begin with a brief overview of the history, discuss evidence on the current-day repercusions of slavery, and then discuss some of the practicalities. All the pieces fit together clearly in a well-structured argument. I wonder: given that we've had affirmative action, in some form, for decades, do you think it has worked? And how much longer would it have to go on?

The writing is clear, though it comes across as a bit formal for the medium. The pictures are effective, and I liked the links; in fact, I saved one of the articles for future use!

This is an interesting study, but looking at the map in this article, it wasn't sugar areas that were the problem, it was the so-called "cotton belt" across Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. Although it's interesting to note that white and black people in those areas are held back--does that make a difference in the argument for reparations?

This is a solid, well-supported account of the ways in which federal power has been used to support civil rights. The examples are well-described, and effective at proving your point. In the end, I'd like to see a bit of a "skylight"--you're answering the question, but I know that you're capable of more insight, and I'd love to hear what you have to say about the broader implications or current-day connections of the history.

In terms of presentation, be sure to preview the post before you make it available, to make sure the "look" is there. For example, the text of the post is very small and hard to read--not ideal.

You have to be a bit careful in sources. This didn't look like men who violated black codes--they existed for such a short time, it just didn't seem right. In fact, this picture was taken later, in the 1880s or 1890s. Just a reminder to be a critical consumer of media.

Do you think this was true of the Jim Crow era? You later seem to walk back the word continually, so perhaps another word would be better here? Always aim for precision in your use of language.

You make a number of interesting points here, situation BLM in the context of the larger black struggle for civil rights, and suggesting certain similarities to SCLC. I feel like you're building to a point or insight which never quite arrives. I wanted to end the post by nodding my head and saying, "Yeah, that's very true" (or alternatively "No, that can't be right"), but the post never quite resolves into a strong argument.

In terms of presentation, always make sure to check out the look of the blog post, e.g., by previewing it. The second picture, for example, is too large. The first caption is rather spaced-out. At one point, you switch font size int the middle of a paragraph. The juxtaposition of two images right next to each other is also not a felicitous look. More attention to visual presentation would help with the blog post.

Also be sure to proofread carefully--there are some errors in here which could have been caught (e.g., iphone instead of iPhone, misspelling Douglass).

Do you think this distinguishes BLM from earlier civil rights movements, or is it a modern extension of the methods they used?

This, I think, has been one of the criticisms of the movement, even from within the civil rights community.

Just as MLK discussed in the Letter from Birmingham jail--he says something very similar to this in there.

black men?

This is a nicely written, clearly organized piece. Your overview of the history is comprehensive, and the distinction you base your analysis on--moral vs. practical--is helpful for thinking about the issue. I particularly like your point at the end, that handing the issue off to a committee is not a good solution, as it would short circuit discussion and debate.

The distinction between moral and practical is not necessarily as clear as your argument implies. For example, you list as one of the practical problems the issue of reparations being paid by people whose ancestors never owned slaves--you say that would be unjust. But if it's unjust, it's a moral issue, which suggests that the moral case for reparations is not as open-and-shut as you suggest.

The writing is good, the images and links complement the writing well. One formatting suggestion: rather than putting URLs beneath the image, write something like this: "Source: Peoples Organization for Progress" then hyperlink Peoples Organization for Progress to the image source. It looks better (URLs are pretty ugly) and also makes the source clear.

Perhaps if we were ready to implement it, it would not, in a sense, be necessary any more.

This seems to me to be an important point. Coates's argument for reparations is as much about the spiritual & cultural transformation it will bring to the country, as it is about the money. Handing of discussion to a small panel of experts would short circuit that conversation.

What if I have benefitted from the existence of this system over the decades since? If my father steals some money and then I inherit it, am I obligated to return it to the rightful owner? It's an interesting question.

And, as you noted earlier, it's not all about slavery. The reparations argument relies also on the existence of racist policies long after slavery.

Despite? Or because?

This link doesn't work.

I don't think this is correct. Perhaps heightened immunity, but if Africans were really immune to malaria, there wouldn't be any malaria in Africa today--whereas in fact, many people die from malaria in Africa every year.

Your analysis ends in an interesting place. I don't think "complacency" is the word you want, but I understand the point you're making. And you have some interesting evidence in here. Particularly interesting is you analysis of King's Letter. And yet, it seems a stretch to suggest that King was seen as moderate. Now, maybe, but not then. And what about the radicals in the women's movement of the late 19th and early 20th century, such as Alice Paul?

While there is the occasional inappropriate word choice or image that doesn't quite work, I appreciate your attempts to spice up the writing. The pictures are good, but note my comment onthe URLs.

But how did the Civil Rights Movement give the appearance of following the law? After all, they consistently engaged in civil disobedience.

Interesting analysis here. The way you started the paragraph, I thought you were suggesting the Civil Rights Movement was radical--in tension with the point you make in the previous paragraph. But the turn here is nicely done.

Or moderation?

What do you think they would have thought of W.E.B. DuBois?

And yet...a bitter pill to swallow, violating all intersectionalty tenets.

I like the creativity of your imagery here (and also at the end of the previous paragraph). It's eye-catching. It's also not always completely clear. Can you think it through a little more?

To be honest, she didn't have rights even before marriage. Control was simply passed from father to husband (thus the marriage tradition of the father "giving away the bride").

Rather than sticking in the URL, turn the picture (or the caption) into a hyperlink. Alternatively, say "Source: The Week" and hyperlink The Week.

What do you mean by disillusionment here?

You lay out clearly Coates's argument, and provide some evidence for it. The argument would be stronger if you considered (and presumably rebutted) possible counterarguments.

In terms of presentation, the writing is fine, but supporting links and images would improve the quality of presentation.

This is, significantly, a separate argument from the point you start at in this paragraph. Do you think it is worth highlighting it on its own?

Can you provide links to additional information?

This seems true to be. Can you provide details?

You make many good points here, and draw some good parallels, for example, the notion of increasing tension, the focus on police brutality, the involvement of students, etc. The use of specific examples from history adds to the quality of the argument. I feel like you take a little too long to get into the comparison. For much of the first part of the post, I felt like I was still having to wait for your point to be made--it seemed descriptive, rather than offering insight. Only in the second half does the insight arrive.

The post might also be improved by considering ways in which the two movements differ.

This is precisely the approach that MLK defended in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail"--the need to use protests to increase tension, sometimes.

This is an interesting point, suggestive of the long historical roots of BLM. If anything, you could emphasize this more.

So I see here how you're bringing it back to the argument.

You've got a lot of good and interesting facts in here (such as this reference to the Tulsa riot). I'm left wondering how they connect with the point you're making. That could be clearer.

Picture captions could be formatted more clearly, and be more explanatory.

You make a cogent argument that black deserve reparations, in the form of educational funding. The post could be strengthened in a couple of ways. First, you could consider counterarguments--what might someone say against reparations, and how would you respond. Second, how would improving education--which benefits everyone in schools--be reparations for injustice directed at black Americans in particular? Finally, what about the argument that if money was stolen from black Americans, then the money should be paid back? If I stole your wallet and then offered you job training so you could earn that money back more quickly, you probably wouldn't see that as fair.

The writing is clear. More specific historical evidence would make for a stronger historically-based argument.

Are these specifically for black Americans? And if not, how are they reparations for black Americans in particular? Or does that even matter?

This is an interesting notion of reparations--not merely financial, but also cultural & spiritual. Coates sometimes talks about reparations this way, too.

Is this true? Coates would argue that it is racist government policies--not least, slavery, but also for example racially discriminatory housing policy--that have created the disparities.

This would be a great sentence in which to include links. You do it, to good effect, in the previous sentence.

Though I feel compelled to note that these are listed in the Declaration of Independence, and not the Constitution.

I like the historical parallels you're drawing here, and in the previous sentence, on use of media.

Have you looked for statements on this? It's possible they have.

I like the use of the letter here, but the phrasing, the way you segue into the quote, is a little awkward.

Though this still sounds like the "positive good" argument for slavery--i.e., it's good for them, in the long run.

You lay out Harding's argument very well towards the start of the blog post. I'm disappointed that you never fully develop your own response. He is analyzing a fundamental dispute about the nature of American history, one which also comes out in the SCLC vs. Black Power debate: is American history fundamentally about ideals, so that racist treatment of blacks is an abberation that needs to be fixed, or fundamentally racist, so that racist treatment of blacks is the rule rather than the exception. You never quite engage with that, or provide your own answer. It's true that MLK demanded change, but he accepted the idea of America, so to speak. Is that the correct understanding of black history in American history, in your opinion?

This is a pretty good summary of Harding's point. It begs the question: what's your opinion? I assume you'll get into that.

Harsh!

This is nicely done. You provide a well-presented argument for reparations. I also appreciate that you bring in counterargument as part of your debate, though I suspect there are stronger counterarguments than what you present.

The style works very well for the medium--nicely done.

And how would you handle reparations to the remaining 40%? Does your argument not apply to them?

To me your strongest points in here are (1) reparations are about remedying directly experienced injustice, not disadvantage, and (2) there are many policies in place to address accumulated disadvantages of black Americans. I don't think you fully address Coates's arguments on these points: that racist government policies didn't end with slavery and in fact continued into the 1950s (at least), affecting people who are still alive; and that race and class are not the same thing, so that policies to help the poor don't address racial injustice.

The writing is clear and well-organized, but could be a little more lively and informal in style--something more appropriate for the medium. Also, there are some awkward and unclear phrasings, as well as a spelling error or two.

But note that Coates and those who agree with him would say that this phrase, "it just so happens," elides the fact that the current status of, say black families, didn't fall from heaven, and that it is instead a result of the policies adopted by the government and white elites. For example, if family stability is associated with higher wealth (which it might be, though I'm not sure), and blacks have lower wealth as a result of past government policies, then family instability is a downstream result of past government policies. More broadly speaking, nothing "just happens"--everything has a cause, and one has to determine the cause and then judge whether what that cause, be it government policy or the free choices of black Americans, has as moral implications.

The argument here isn't completely clear. It's true that it was short-lived and unsuccessful. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. If it's the right thing to do, then the country should try again, but this time stick with it. After all, if the experiment was in a small area and lasted only a short time before being shut down, was it really tried in a morally meaningful sense?

That being said, you miss a possible point for your argument here: that this form of reparations would have made more sense, in that it was directly helping the victims of slavery. So do you think this set of reparations would have been justified, in the way that reparations now are not justified?

I'm not convinced this is true. See for example, this article, and the links at the bottom of it.

Not just slavery--racist government policies since that time, as well.

I would probably say "was in the past hesitant" -- it's not clear that it still is, at least not to the extent that it used to be.

What about Coates's point that race and class are different, and thus policies aimed at low-income people don't address the moral issue of racial discrimination?

A stylistic suggestion, for a blog post: don't put the URL link in a parenthetical remark. Instead, make it part of the text (e.g., hyperlink the phrase "Civil Liberties Act" and link it to the NPR article.

Good transition, and a good way of framing the argument.

Longer -- 1619 to 1865

As a formatting issue, you should put this in as a title, separate from the text, not in the text itself.

You start off well, with a nicely written lead-in that grabs the reader's attention and interest. The historical background is also helpful and interesting. The argument for reparations is more problematic. This is partly because I'm not fully convinced by your interpretation of some of the studies you cite, and partly because I don't think you fully engage with the full meaning of reparations, nor with some of the critiques of the idea.

This doesn't follow from the study you just cited. In fact, the study say that different names result in different outcomes, not that the same names result in different outcomes. It suggests that a truly "blind read" of applications might make a difference.

I don't think this is true. Reparations implies active aid, monetary or otherwise, to make up past wrongs. Blind reading of applications merely treats blacks and whites the same. It's true that it helps avoid racism, but that's not the same as reparations.

I think this is a more accurate claim, but it's not clear, because it's not clear what the numbers in the graphic represent. Percentages? Absolute numbers?

Again, I don't think it shows this.

Again, watch out for passive vocie!

I think it's important to note that redlining was aided and abetted by federal government policy and agencies. that strengthens the argument for reparations.

I'm not sure this was true. Yes, many blacks were trapped in debt, but so were many whites. In fact, I believe a majority of sharecroppers were whites (though it was more common among blacks).

Watch out for passive voice!

This is a fine blog post: thoughtful, clearly written, well-organized, and well-supported. Like all theories, it is perhaps too simple, and yet that doesn't mean it is incorrect. Instead, it is suggestive of some larger patterns in history. Nice work!

Be consistent in font size

Even better would be to link directly to some stats.

Interesting link. But remember, on a public blog site like this, most people won't have access to Jstor. You want to try to link to universally accessible sites.

And yet, ironically, isn't that kind of what Washington is saying--build ourselves up economically first?

You lay out short but clear summary of current economic shortcomings, then make, and defend with historical references, three different policies. In that respect, the policy with the clearest historical evidence is the first--you note past Keynesian policies in US history. On the other two, you don't really present historical evidence that it would work. Privatizing Social Security would, in fact, be a dramatic change, effectively ending a guaranteed pension. Couldn't the run counter to your basic goal of putting money in people's pockets.

In terms of presentation, the writing is clear and the images and links complement the writing. You should have a title for the post.

Even better is to actually make this text a link to the site you got the chart from.

Your argument remains a little unclear to me at the end. The fundamental question is, can we return to an economy marked by steady growth as well as broad distribution of benefits. The argument and evidence your present here seems a little ambiguous. Most of the evidence is pessimistic, but at the end you seem more optimistic, without presenting evidence. I think you're point is that we can't be a world-dominating economy, but we can still be prosperous. But given that you suggest that our post-war prosperity was based on our economic dominance of the world, it's not clear how that will be true.

The writing is adequate, and the pictures are effective complements to the writing. The change in font size mid-way through looks a little sloppy.

It's interesting you say this, as up to now you seemed to mostly presenting evidence that the post-war era was unrepeatable, that it arose out of a combination of factors unlikely to repeat.

So how does this relate to your argument. Is your point that these policies undermined the post-war prosperity, or is that this shows that changing policies has had little effect on the underlying trends?

You have a good clear point, effectively connected with both the history and with economic theory. Nicely done!

In terms of presentation, the writing is strong, the visuals and links complement the writing effectively, but the shift in font midway through the post is distracting, and doesn't look good.

True--but here you have also have a plausible explanation for why correlation is causation.

Can you a link to a source for this?

Not policy wonks! They love infrastructure.

Rather than just putting in the URL, you should say "Source" (or name the source), and make that a hyperlink. A snappy caption would be good, too!

This is nicely done. The points you are make are clear, and well-supported by adequate evidence. The writing style is clear, and the pictures complement the text effectively, and the links you include are good. You end on a rather grim note, but your argument getting there is (sadly) persuasive.

I'm not sure this is true--a transition is going on in renewable energy in many areas. Unfortunately, as you note, we will be sharing this with other countries--China, in particular.

This is not exactly correct. Manufacturing output as continued to rise, as has productivity, even as manufacturing employment has fallen and wages have stagnated.

I think you mean just "stagnation" here--stagflation refers to a particular economic circumstance, stagnating growth combined with high inflation. It happened during the 1970s, but has not really been a problem since then.

You make an effective argument here. I particularly like the way you tie it all together and sum it up in the last paragraph: causes of good fortune are rare, causes of disaster all too prevalent. You also effectively connect with the history--as for example, analyzing the relationship between WWII and the post-war boom.

The writing is good, but there are a few points where the wording could use a bit more polish. Captions on the pictures would help explain the relationship to the text more clearly.

This sounds a little Marxist to me, as in, "Do what you want, but eventually capitalism will assert itself and caus problems."

I'm not sure if this is the right word.

Rather than putting the URL here, you should say "Source" and then make that a hyperlink--or, even better, name the source, the make the name the hyperlink.

You're comparison of current populist movements with historical populist movements is very solid. What does the comparison tell us? What's the lesson to be learned here, or the prediction to be made? You should aim to go beyond just the comparison to some deeper analysis.

The writing is good, and the images are effective. It looks good, which is important in a multimedia piece such as this.

I don't think "reactionary" is the word you want here. It means "so conservative you want to return to the way things used to be." You might be able to describe Trump that way, but not Sanders.

You tell a good story here: about how laissez-faire capitalism ended up defeating republicanism. At a deeper level, I'm left wondering why it happened? Was it something inherent in industrial capitalism (e.g., scale)? Was it something that was bound to happen as the population grew and the country filled up? Or was it something that could have been prevented, had the government pursued different policies?

You end on a high note. Do you think there are tradeoffs? What do we gain for losing republicanism?

The images complement the writing well, and writing is pretty good, and the organization is clear, but there are a few points where there are some wording issues.

It sounds like the Gilded Age had already killed republicanism. Or was that not the case?

As a writing thing, be careful about personifying inanimate concepts like "the Antebellum era."

That's not a huge number. By way of comparison, these days about 12.5% of the bottom fifth makes it into the top 40%; about 5% made it in the top 40%.

Is capitalism itself in tension with republicanism? Or just laissez-faire capitalism? After all, capitalism, too, revolves around a certain amount of self-interest.

Do you think this is a regrettable development?

You point is clear: republicanism, when properly updated, is still relevant. You support it with references to past policies, including those of FDR, LBJ, Reagan, and Obama. I think you do okay at arguing that small government doesn't always help. I'd like to hear more about why that's the case--what has changed?--and also why small government is not essential to republicanism.

You're writing is good, but your first choice of cartoon is odd, as it seems to be anti-big government, whereas your post defends big government.

I think this is a key point, and I'd like to hear you say more about why this is the case. What is it about the modern economy that makes this true?

Is this republicanism?

High government defense spending also played a role. Of course, that only confirms your own argument.

To be fair to Reagan, the recession was largely a result of Fed monetary policy, specifically, high interest rates to control inflation. Those who criticize Reaganomics tend to take a long view, seeing it as setting up the wage stagnation we've seen since then.

"budgetary" I think -- monetary policy usually refers to the control of the money supply by the Federal Reserve.

So what has changed to make the old version of republicanism obsolete?

An example of equality, presumably.

I think you mean "price fixing."

I think you mean "rightly" here.

So you keep the goals and values, but change the means? That's very much what Progressives like Herbert Croly were saying 100 years ago. He called it "Hamiltonian means to Jeffersonian ends."

It seems to me you're addressing question #2--can we get back to that era of post-war prosperity, or not?--but your answer isn't fully clear. You do suggest that the fate of cities parallels that of the US economy as a whole. It's not clear what implications that has for us getting back to an era of prosperity--is it that the revival of cities suggests we're heading in that direction? But if so, why? And why should we take cities as the indicator? That needs to be more clearly explained. After all, the post-war era was an era of suburbanization, and it was the suburbs, and not the cities, that were doing well then.

It is an interesting idea--that the cities are now the heart of economic development--and one that others have raised as well. That being said, you need to more clearly explain how it addresses the question I've asked you to tackle.

This is an interesting idea. Many people have commented on the recent revival of American cities. Do you think that is reflective of an underlying return to prosperity?

Better than putting in the URL, you should just put "Source" (or the actual name of the site) then make that a hyperlink to the site.

So why do you think urban populations are such an indicator of economic success?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

They also seized some of the Aleutian islands.

You start out strong here--I like you're opening, and I think you're core point here--that the ideals are still valid, even if they way we apply it needs to change--is an interesting one. I wonder, then, what counts as core values. For example, why is "small government" not a core value? That's what you suggest, anyway, that we can have a larger, more activist government while still maintaining republican ideals. What do you think are the core, essential republican ideals?

I'm also a little disappointed that you don't specify how the ideals should be applied to current circumstances. That's an important part of the argument that I'd like to hear more on. To convince me that republicanism isn't dead, you should show me what we can do to keep it alive.

The writing is good. Oddly, the images don't display--did you look at the post after you published it? Do they display in your browser?

FYI: Inflation was a problem in the 1970s. Since then, inflation has been low.

It would be more accurate to say that the growth of productivity slowed.

You make a number of good points in here--for example, your analysis of the origins of the post-war prosperity in the (unrepeatable) circumstances of World War II, or your observation of the limits on prosperity in that era. That second point could have a little more specific--for example, mentioning that white were excluded from suburbs, or nothing the continuing high levels of poverty among marginalized groups.

The writing is good and the use of images is effective, though the group could be cropped better, and as I noted in my comments, you could cite the sources in a cleaner way using hyperlinks.

Who is this?

Better than putting the URL, just put Source: Gawker, and then make the word "Gawker" a hyperlink to the original source page.

You make a nice comparison, and highlight some real similarities. As you note, the question is: given the similarities, why the difference in outcome? You posit the existence of social media, which is possible, but seems a somewhat weak reed to base the entire argument on. After all, Long and Couglin were able to exploit the new media technology of the day, namely, radio, very effectively.

Overall, while I feel your description of the comparison/contrast is good, I don't find the sort of analytical insight I often find your writings.

The pictures are good (and I like the video comparison of Sanders and Long). The writing is good as well, with only the occasional writing error. However, the shift in font size several paragraphs in is distracting.

That leads to the obvious question of course: why this difference?

I admire the creativity of your central metaphor. Your use of images in good, and you seem to know the history--particularly the political history--well.

In the end, the metaphor, and therefore the argument doesn't quite work. You start out by saying Gruber represents republicanism, but towards the middle of the post suggest that he represents Reagan. So which is it? Does liberal policy, a.k.a. McClane, kill Reaganomics or does it kill republicanism?

It's also not clear to me, from your post, why we need to toss republicanism out the window. You suggest that it's because it makes incorrect assumptions about human nature, but that's not unique to know. You also suggest it's because of population growth, but the US has been larger than the traditionally optimal size for a republic for a long time. So how has what has happened recently undermined republicanism?

Overall, then, the writing is clever and clear, and the knowledge of the political history is good (there's a bit less on economic history), but the point you're making doesn't seem adequately supported.

And yet, Reagan was reelected in a landslide in 1984.

How so? I'd like to hear you explain this more.

Your general point is clear and interesting. The organization of your argument isn't as clear as it could be, and I'd like to have more specifics in the supporting evidence. Also, there are many points where you have some awkward phrasings or omitted words. Watch for proofreading!

A formatting note--make sure you size your pictures so they fit well within the blog.

But the article you link to suggests that large transfer programs (i.e., welfare) also hamper growth. In fact, it seems to be an argument against big government generally--which goes against the general thrust of your point in the post.

Are you thinking of a specific historical example here?

What would you do with the additional money collected?

How have they created this? Can you explain?

You mean Republican Party? The Conservative Party is in Britain.

But doesn't automation increase productivity and thus (in the long run) raise incomes? There seems to be a risk with hampering automation.

I think you need to defend claims like this more effectively. What specific regulations are you thinking of that ensured fair wages? And what prevented outsourcing? More specifics would be better here.

It's a little unclear, but I take it that you are addressing question #1: what policies should we adopt to make the country more prosperous. It's not a strongly economic argument; there is little economic history in here. To the extent that there is a proposal here, it is not strongly backed up with historical examples. You seem to say we should listen to each other, as Hamilton and Jefferson did. But it's not clear they really did listen to each other, or compromise with each other. As you note, the 1790s were a period of intense polarization, with one side literally throwing the other in jail at point.

As an aside: I see that your first chart references Shadowstats. That site is widely disliked among serious economists for inaccuracies in the way it calculates inflation. So I would be wary of any site that cited Shadowstats.

There is a really interesting argument in here. It seems to be something like this: populist movements (with a lower case 'p') are common in periods of economic upheaval, so in that sense Trump has a lot of precedents. But his flavor of populism, based on distrust of government, is unprecedented, and a turn away from earlier movements. To the extent that Trump governs as an orthodox, laissez-faire Republican, I think that will be true. But it's not completely clear he will do that, or that the people who voted from him want that. And then there's the fact that Jackson himself argued against small government.

Overall, then, the ideas don't quite come together. I think also the piece is a bit disorganized, which hampers the ideas somewhat. The use of headings is good, but that can only go so far.

In general, I like the writing, despite a few places where there are some awkward phrasings. You have a vigorous style that is well suited to the medium.

I like this way of putting it. That being said, I'm not completely sure that a vote for Trump was a vote for laissez-faire small government. Trump himself supported certain government entitlement programs.

This is unclear.

Well, yes and no. Jackson may not have been a billionaire, but he was rich, and he was anti-government, and he had made money in land speculation (i.e., real estate)--so there are some parallels with now. Though it is true, as you note earlier, that he was more of an insider than Trump is.

I think this could be brought out a little bit more earlier on--I mean, in terms of your discussion of the Populists, the New Deal, and the Know Nothings. You don't say much about the "challenging economic times" of those movements, which leaves this statement seemingly coming out of the blue a bit too much.

It's interesting, I think, that the Populists emerged at the end of the Gilded Age, just as the Sanders movement emerged out of the "new Gilded Age."

regulation?

Did they? I'd love to read more. This would be a great place for a hyperlink to another page.

Your proposals are interesting, and similar to some policy proposals that are out there. The overall problem with the piece, however, is that it doesn't include historical examples to support your points. You do mention the War on Poverty, but (as I noted in my comment), that can't explain the post-war prosperity, as it came at the very end of that period. And you don't mention any historical examples to back up your specific policies. Failure to include historical examples is a serious oversight, as it is a fundamental requirement of the assignment.

Cutting defense spending 50%? That would be dramatic!

You should provide a source for that image.

Are you referring to Medicare here?

How so? The War on Poverty did not start until 1964, and prosperity had been going on for decades at that point.

Annually?

Overall, you seem to be making good points, though at times it feels like you're repeating points from the reading without adding your own analysis as much as you could. I think the organization could be a little clearer. As a reader, I often found myself stopping to ask: so what points has she made so far? What point is she making now? Just to highlight one example: you start with two paragraphs discussing unemployment during the Great Depression, but it's not clear how that fits into the overall points you're making.

Make sure the formatting is all good. For example, I notice that the first paragraph is not flush-left like the others. Also, pictures should be sized so as to not spread out of the text column.

You seem to be putting forward a couple of policies here: decreased military spending, and increased spending on infrastructure and education. It's not completely clear that a shift of money by itself would provide additional economic stimulus, as you suggest. However, it is true that policies such as improving education can also have positive long-term effects that military spending doesn't have.

You have some historical connections to back up your arguments. I feel, however, like they aren't fully convincing in showing that these policies will work. The New Deal example, is pretty good--but can you show that, e.g., LBJ's education policies helped?

There are formatting errors in here which make it look less polished--you use different fonts, some of the text is centered, there is URL in the middle of the text, etc. It's always good to look the post over to make sure it looks good.

The writing has some strengths--you have a vigorous, direct style which is appropriate for the medium--but also some weaknesses (usage errors, some awkward word choice, and so on).

Your summary of the causes of the decline of manufacturing employment is nice, as is your connection to the antebellum era. Your proposed solution is also nicely rooted in the history. Of course, one of the challenges is convincing, say, a 49 year old factory worked to go back to school and learn a whole new set of skills. It's what makes the policy you propose (and that other experts have proposed as well) more difficult in practice than you would think.

Your response to income inequality--more progressive taxation--is a bit less clear. You describe the problem clearly and connect to the history, but it's not completely clear how the higher tax rates on the wealthy would decrease income inequality. You seem to go back and forth between tax breaks/credits for businesses on the one hand, government spending on the other. So that point is less clear.

Your images are good, and I like the links you include. The writing style has a few awkward points in it, but is generally clear.

You highlight a couple of issues. At this point, the question of unemployment is complication. The unemployment rate is actually quite low, which would suggest that unemployment is not a problem; however, the percentage of the population not working (for whatever reason) is rather high, which suggests that unemployment might be a concern. That nuance needs to be brought out more.

The policies you suggest are rooted in the history, and targeted to address the issues you address. There are a few factual errors--for example, the WPA employed more people than you state. I also think some of your information should be more up to date--2003, for example, is a long time ago, in economic terms.

Your images are good, and your hyper links are also good.

The writing style could be more polished--there are too many awkward word choices, or usage errors.

You do a nice job of outlining the ways in which the post-war era was unique in American history. Your turn at the end is also interesting: "we can never have what we had in the 1950s and 1960s--but that doesn't mean it can't be better."

The writing style could be more polished throughout. There are examples of poor word choice or usage errors scattered throughout--watch out for comma splices. The images are good, but adding in some links would be nice as well.

I think you're a your best here in the comparison of Trump and Jackson. You make good points, and the writing is strong. The lead up to it is pretty good as well. The writing isn't quite as polished, but you do an adequate job of summarizing the economic changes. My quibble there is that it's worth noting the disconnect between what you say was causing problems for "ordinary Americans," and what Jackson said--it opens up the possibility that Trump, too, might be mistaken.

The biggest disappointment is the follow-on to your comparison. I feel like there are some implications for the relationship between politics and economics that you could draw out, and you never do. Instead, you move on to some valid, but not connected, points about Trump, Jackson, and corruption. So the thread of the argument never feels completed.

The images are good, though the sizing seems off at points. Your writing style is lively, but sometimes with some awkward phrasings.

Well, yes and no, as you note--you say Jackson was more qualified than Trump.

So what is the general point you can draw from this comparison, about politics and economics in the US?

I don't think Jackson spoke much about industrialization. It's true that he saw himself as defending small farmers and artisans; I'm not sure he analyzed it in these economic terms however. It was more in terms of "corrupt interests," as you say above. Of course, we might now look back and say economic changes were driving things--but that's not necessarily what he thought.

The first bank was created in 1791. The second bank--the one Jackson killed--was chartered in 1816.

And yet it's interesting that in the trends you describe above, the government doesn't appear at all. Does that mean that he was inaccurate in his diagnosis of the source of the problem?

For some reason, your pictures aren't displaying--did you check the appearance of the blog post after you posted?

Better to use an American poster, since you're writing about the U.S.

The point is that the developers of weapons are people, too, and they, too, will spend the money they make. That's why military spending can be Keynesian in effect.

Ironically! But I would point out that it was Reagan's military spending that was the Keynesian stimulus. In fact, military spending can be a Keynesian stimulus--as it was under Reagan, and also during World War II.

Not clear. It may be that he doesn't pay taxes, but it's all technically legal. But that doesn't run counter to your fundamental point.

It's not a great style to include the URL in the text. The easiest fix is to make the word "here" a hyperlink. Even better is to write something like "Focus Economic has a good summary of the current state of the economy" and make the word "summary" the hyperlink. That weaves the link into the text.

Over what time period?

A couple of notes. First, you should size the picture so that it fits within the blog. Second, rather than including the URL here, just name the source and then turn the name into a hyperlink--that way, a reader can click directly through to the source.

Finally, this is an old image--five years old, in fact. The unemployment rate has dropped dramatically since then.

In fact (though we didn't study this), immigration restrictions actually started in the 1920s, though it's true that WWII drove immigration even lower.

You mean beyond just equal rights. What do you have in mind?

As a formatting tip, it looks better if you don't center the text.

There's a paradox here that bears further thinking. It sounds like you're endorsing the values of republicanism, but not the means. What if they're related? What if you can't have, for example, independence together with dependence on government? Or are some republican values more important than others?

Very interesting. You make your point clearly, and I like the very clear connections to the specifics of the history.

Of course, the Gilded Age era was (eventually) followed by the 1950s and 1960s, suggesting that this sort of economic situation can be changed. What would it take to bring back that era of prosperity? Do you even think it's possible? Not the questions you're addressing here, but interesting ones, nonetheless.

Formatting suggestion--turn this into a hyperlink, and link directly to the article.

This is very interesting. I think you're effective at making arguments about the post-WWII era. I would have loved to have seen it put in an even longer historical context--what connections can you make to further in the past? For example, as my previous comment suggests, the issue you're getting at here evokes the TR/Wilson debate in the 1912 election.

Dissolve corporations? That's a radical idea. Is it not sufficient to regulate them, à la Teddy Roosevelt? In other words, is it the concentration of power per se that's the problem, or the concentration of power in corporations in particular.

What do you mean by purity here? Earlier you seem to suggest it was the centralization of power in the "new republic" that left it open to corruption. Is that what you mean, or do you have something else in mind.

In another post, for example, I read that consumerism was itself the culprit, for it undercut the virtue and public-spiritedness of republicanism. So is the problem a values issue, or a structural/institutional issue?

Again, this is interesting, for if corporations had so much power, how had they been limited in the first place?

An interesting turn of phrase--because it evokes the name of the famous magazine, The New Republic.