What kind of democracy did the framers of the constitution envision for America? And does it even matter given the expanse of time that separates their world from the modern era. Is their vision even relevent today? This from a recent interview with American historian Gore Vidal: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/04/1353259 "Incidentally, for your listeners, viewers, the word democracy is not only never mentioned in the Constitution of the United States, but democracy was something that the founding fathers hated. This is not generally known because it shouldn't be known, but it is. I wrote a little book about it called, "Inventing A Nation," that Yale published last year. Our founders feared two things. One was the rule of the people, which they thought would just be a mess. And they feared tyranny, which we had gone through King George III, and so they wanted a republic, a safe place for men – white men of property to do business in. This is not ideal, but it's better than what we have."
Democracy? Republic? Empire? http://www.trimonline.org/website/deceived.htm "Not only did our Founding Fathers establish a republic, they greatly feared democracy. James Madison, known as the father of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in "Essay #10" of The Federalist Papers: "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Although such an attitude will surprise most Americans, it is accurate. The United States Constitution does not contain the word democracy. It does "guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government...."
Well they certainly didn't underestimate rise of corruptionand power hunger in the federal government nor the the publics ability to feed them. How many slaves signed on to "facebook" right now. Quite honestly, "fuck the people".
I think this is too generalized and needs a bit more detail. Consider the numerous remarks by Jefferson along the following lines: It seems to me it wasn't so much a fear of rule by the people per se, but fear of two closely related scenarios: (1) Tyranny of the majority -- individual or minority rights being trampled because most of "the people" have a different opinion on an issue. (This is basically taken care of by the Bill of Rights, which provides strong protection for individual liberty.) (2) Rule by ignorant, uneducated people. Jefferson also commented on this, saying that the system will only work if "the people" are well-informed and educated. (This, clearly, remains a problem.) Obviously, the Founders chose a republic over a true democracy. And obviously they had some reservations about the ability of the people to participate in a responsible, educated manner. And obviously they had a more restricted view of who was allowed to participate, with regards to sex, race, and socioeconomic status. Still, I think it's important to not lose sight of the place "the people" held in the underlying philosophy that drove the Founders to design the government that they did. The core of that philosophy was that governmental power is granted by the people, rather than government granting freedom to the people. I'd say the Founders were cautious about how much direct influence the people should have; but to call it fear is somewhat of an exaggeration.
Excellent input LK! Would you agree then that there should be a few intellectual conditions attached to voting rights. If a citizen for example doesnt know the difference between a congressman and a senator, or how long they hold office, or what the national debt is approx, or where England is on a map...should they be allowed to choose your leaders? To earn the right to vote, perhaps there should be a simple test. The conditions for voting in the early days...white male of property and of a certain age...are obviously no longer acceptable.
Locke was tight though. A government with the consent of the governed and all that. Cooler than all the founding fathers...except Franklin.
Ugh... why does it matter what the Founding Fathers thought? Not that I'm saying we should shrugg off history, but if we REALLY did what they wanted we'd: --deny women the right to vote (except for, perhaps, Adams who may have been one of the first quasi-women's suffragists in the US) --deny women ANY right to debate publicly with men --give only land owners the right to vote --keep the brown people out of the franchise --allow children to be treated as slave labor by their (sometimes) manipulative parents Not that the US was a cesspool of evil activity at the time-- they were, in fact, eons ahead of their time. But, the Founding Fathers are dead, and thank GOD they are. ~String
Actually yes, I do believe there should be some sort of conditions involved. I'm not sure what form they should take though. Perhaps something as simple as passing a comprehensive civics course in high school. Or maybe simply proving that you graduated from high school. Or passing a short but revealing test just before voting. I don't know. I do know that if other democratic countries do a better job of educating their people, then those people will choose their leaders more wisely, and those countries will outperform us.
Yeah, it's one more topic that sciforums members can argue and disagree about! And heaven knows, we don't have enough disagreement around here on topics, ya' know? All that loving and caring and helping your neighbor and ....all that other liberal bullshit is just for talking, not for actual doing! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
You've said that before, String. No one is saying we should have precisely the same kind of society that existed 200 years ago. But the founding of our government and Constitution was one of the revolutionary events in history (no pun intended!), and it's important to understand the thought processes behind it. This is especially true if we want to modify it wisely while preserving the really important elements.
In very basic terms it's that old adage, "those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it." Or alternatively, "you don't know where you're going if you don't know where you've come from." It is important to understand the history and beginnings of our government and Constitution so that we do not let the freedoms guaranteed under it slip away. This is a very real danger, IMO, as a large portion of today's population is firghteningly ignorant of such matters, and we have already given up too much of that freedom. How can we recognize when the government oversteps its bounds, if we don't understand the basis for what those bounds are? So many people today see our liberty as a kind of gift bestowed on us by government. An understanding of the underlying philosophy behind our Constitution would help people realize how ass-backwards that view is. It would also have consequences for how people choose their leaders, or how they view proposed legislation. Or how they choose the judges who interpret the Constitution, or how they choose the leaders who appoint those judges. How can you trust that judicial opinions are in accordance with Constitutional philosophy if you don't have an understanding of it yourself?
my, my, what a sentimental dumbfuck you are. that's right, it isn't generally known . . . to todays youth. if the pledge of allegiance was still being said in our schools you would have no doubt our nation is a republic.
No. I'm quite well versed in US history. And (not that you need me to affirm your statement)-- you are quite right. I never said that the founders WEREN'T ahead of their times, or the most capable intellects since ancient Greece. They did, indeed, enshrine in the US constitution all the necessary mechanisms for a successful Republic. The funny thing, though-- most of them agreed to the constitution because they either thought it just strong enough to hold the country together until a new constitution could be created and a King put on the throne... or TOO strong, but so riddled with faults that it would inevitably fall apart and be replace with a weaker, more decentralized government. All but a handful of them thought it was a transient document that would soon be replaced (something, for now, instead of anarchy). The compromise, whithout them actually knowing it... was so close to perfection (except for the 3/5 compromise and "slavery" clauses), a shame that few of them at that time realized the amazing foundation they laid. LIEGE!! HOLY SHIT! It's nice to see you man! (or woman... strangly enough, over the years, I never learned your sex... I think... and if I did, I plum forgot) Oh-- and your statements are true. My statements were NOT meant to unaffirm the imporance of history, only in the "we need to shape our interpretations by conventional and current issues" sense. The anacronistic ways of thinking (though, in the case of Adams [for instance], some were WAY ahead of their time), should not overshadow the importance of making a sound decision with what we know today, and NOT do "what the Founders wanted". ~String
