When the public order took a strong interest in the Amish, the period as you note 1920-1950, the nation was still strongly agrarian (in both population distribution and outlook) and many of the elites (both state and national) came from agrarian communities. In their view, the Amish weren't "pulling their weight," either in respect to education or the military. In other words, the Amish were members of a community, and had obligations to that community, but the Amish didn't understand to which community they belonged. Thus, I see the state/Amish conflict of that period as a conflict between two well-established communities, rather than between a well-established community (the Amish) and a liberal state (in saying this, I do not deny that many agrarian state and local governments were at that time liberal, or "progressive").
By the way, this feeling in the agrarian community that the Amish aren't pulling their weight persists, at least in the agrarian communities with which I'm familiar. The Amish practice a "cash economy," and the suspicion is widespread that many, if not all, transactions, including labor transactions, are essentially a black market operating outside the norms of the taxing system. Because the local community is funded primarily through property taxes -- a tax the Amish cannot avoid -- this resentment is therefore tempered. It is further tempered by the associated tax-avoidance mentality in the community at large, who willingly collaborate with the Amish in their cash-only and barter economy. However, if the Amish were a larger minority, and dominated a local economy, this issue could possibly become detrimental to the Amish.
My question is this for the liberal state. Given that the locus of power is the national government, and given that liberalism has co-opted both Catholic and liberal Protestant politicians to cooperate in its project, why bother with the Amish or similar groups? This question prompts another comment, which is my astonishment that the federal government would take any interest whatsoever in the Branch Davidians. Can any generalities be drawn from that episode, or was it merely one symptom of the pathologies of the Clinton administration and its Attorney General, Janet Reno?
Amish
I have a question, and a few comments.
When the public order took a strong interest in the Amish, the period as you note 1920-1950, the nation was still strongly agrarian (in both population distribution and outlook) and many of the elites (both state and national) came from agrarian communities. In their view, the Amish weren't "pulling their weight," either in respect to education or the military. In other words, the Amish were members of a community, and had obligations to that community, but the Amish didn't understand to which community they belonged. Thus, I see the state/Amish conflict of that period as a conflict between two well-established communities, rather than between a well-established community (the Amish) and a liberal state (in saying this, I do not deny that many agrarian state and local governments were at that time liberal, or "progressive").
By the way, this feeling in the agrarian community that the Amish aren't pulling their weight persists, at least in the agrarian communities with which I'm familiar. The Amish practice a "cash economy," and the suspicion is widespread that many, if not all, transactions, including labor transactions, are essentially a black market operating outside the norms of the taxing system. Because the local community is funded primarily through property taxes -- a tax the Amish cannot avoid -- this resentment is therefore tempered. It is further tempered by the associated tax-avoidance mentality in the community at large, who willingly collaborate with the Amish in their cash-only and barter economy. However, if the Amish were a larger minority, and dominated a local economy, this issue could possibly become detrimental to the Amish.
My question is this for the liberal state. Given that the locus of power is the national government, and given that liberalism has co-opted both Catholic and liberal Protestant politicians to cooperate in its project, why bother with the Amish or similar groups? This question prompts another comment, which is my astonishment that the federal government would take any interest whatsoever in the Branch Davidians. Can any generalities be drawn from that episode, or was it merely one symptom of the pathologies of the Clinton administration and its Attorney General, Janet Reno?