The Founding Founders got most of it right. But we cannot blame them for not being clairvoyant. There was no way one could expect luminaries like Jefferson and Franklin to foresee the rise of America as the world's dominant power with a military second to none.
Their Libertarian/Liberal version of their newly created country made sense at the time. In no way were they Conservative, as so many modern day Conservatives like to fantasize. The Conservatives in their day wanted to stay with England and keep things as they were. The majority of the Founders had Libertarian tendencies combined with a healthy dose of Liberalism. They were for minimal government and no foreign entanglements, but they were also for human rights. This created a paradox that cost America dearly. Libertarianism believed the government should not interfere with free trade and it allowed for such options as slavery. That worked until the human rights strand started to seriously re-examine the morally of human trafficking. We are still paying the price for this contradiction today.
In it early history, America was a minor league entity, so this quasi-anarchy worked for a while. Much to the chagrin of the Libertarians, the country grew in size and the government grew along with it. The Civil War required massive investments in the military and by WWI America had become a country that our ex-masters were happy to see return as saviors. "The Yanks are coming..." they sang. We were no longer the sleepy agricultural community Jefferson had dreamed about. We were world players.
The Founders had little faith in the masses. For them, democracy was to be in the hands of the (male) land owning class, since land ownership was the ultimate sign of responsibility and power. A kind of elitist Libertarianism if you will. There are still students of American government who posit that American elites maintain our democracy and rule America. The best text for this view is the brilliant book by professors Schubert, Dye, and Ziegler, The Irony of Democracy. They argue that average people are inherently undemocratic and the institutions that maintain our democracy are run by elites. Also, it is the elite spirit that allows whatever semblance of democracy we have to thrive.
The problem these days is the masses are increasingly catching on to the scam.
Should we rejoice in this development? That the masses are slowly, but surely taking over their country? The answer, I'm afraid, is a cautious no.
And that's where political parties come in. We are currently witnessing the dismantling of one of our two major parties, the Republican Party. The elites who run that party have failed to take control of their own party and therefore we are witnessing the take over of that party by insurgents led by a narcissistic walking catastrophe by the name of Donald Trump who has no business being anywhere near the Oval Office. Trump supporters are the descendants of people Jefferson feared would not be able to handle democracy well.
A similar phenomenon happened on the Democratic side, except in their case, luck intervened, and the leader of that revolution, Bernie Sanders, was not dangerous and quite benign. The Republic would not have been in danger should he have won the Presidency.
Since becoming a major world power, the United States had choices to make. Either evolve into a more and more democratic country with more choices for voters, thereby becoming more unstable or restrict the choices available to the public and have compromise baked into the candidates. This was only possible if there were a binary choice for President, which represented all the vetting the elites could muster and which would represent huge swaths of diverse thinking. This would insure better stability and stability was preferred over diversity because a great power cannot afford to be unstable. The diversity had to manifest itself within an organized party structure but be not allowed to grow on its own. That is why third party candidates have never worked since WWI.
And before you pass judgement on stability, think about what stability has given us. Sure, America is far from perfect, but compared to what? Countries constantly on the brink?
And before you are ready to trash this argument, I will admit that Bernie was good for the Republic. He brought up issues that needed to be brought up. He made the elites take notice and that is a good thing. Even Trump shook things up among the Republicans. The problem with Trump is that he went too far. Trump himself didn't want it to get this far. The Trump campaign reminds me of Mel Brooks' timeless comedy, The Producers where two losers were deliberately trying to produce a Broadway flop and ending up with a hit on their hands. Trump has become his own worst nightmare. He is a hit. Let's hope the public finally gets tired of this farce before November. American needs its Republican Party back. If for no other reason to keep the Democrats on their toes.
Their Libertarian/Liberal version of their newly created country made sense at the time. In no way were they Conservative, as so many modern day Conservatives like to fantasize. The Conservatives in their day wanted to stay with England and keep things as they were. The majority of the Founders had Libertarian tendencies combined with a healthy dose of Liberalism. They were for minimal government and no foreign entanglements, but they were also for human rights. This created a paradox that cost America dearly. Libertarianism believed the government should not interfere with free trade and it allowed for such options as slavery. That worked until the human rights strand started to seriously re-examine the morally of human trafficking. We are still paying the price for this contradiction today.
 |
| Jefferson's dream was a modest agricultural country with no foreign "entanglements" |
In it early history, America was a minor league entity, so this quasi-anarchy worked for a while. Much to the chagrin of the Libertarians, the country grew in size and the government grew along with it. The Civil War required massive investments in the military and by WWI America had become a country that our ex-masters were happy to see return as saviors. "The Yanks are coming..." they sang. We were no longer the sleepy agricultural community Jefferson had dreamed about. We were world players.
The Founders had little faith in the masses. For them, democracy was to be in the hands of the (male) land owning class, since land ownership was the ultimate sign of responsibility and power. A kind of elitist Libertarianism if you will. There are still students of American government who posit that American elites maintain our democracy and rule America. The best text for this view is the brilliant book by professors Schubert, Dye, and Ziegler, The Irony of Democracy. They argue that average people are inherently undemocratic and the institutions that maintain our democracy are run by elites. Also, it is the elite spirit that allows whatever semblance of democracy we have to thrive.
The problem these days is the masses are increasingly catching on to the scam.
Should we rejoice in this development? That the masses are slowly, but surely taking over their country? The answer, I'm afraid, is a cautious no.
 |
| GOP Chair Priebus unable to stop the Trump phenom |
A similar phenomenon happened on the Democratic side, except in their case, luck intervened, and the leader of that revolution, Bernie Sanders, was not dangerous and quite benign. The Republic would not have been in danger should he have won the Presidency.
Since becoming a major world power, the United States had choices to make. Either evolve into a more and more democratic country with more choices for voters, thereby becoming more unstable or restrict the choices available to the public and have compromise baked into the candidates. This was only possible if there were a binary choice for President, which represented all the vetting the elites could muster and which would represent huge swaths of diverse thinking. This would insure better stability and stability was preferred over diversity because a great power cannot afford to be unstable. The diversity had to manifest itself within an organized party structure but be not allowed to grow on its own. That is why third party candidates have never worked since WWI.
 |
| Trump broke the GOP. Will it be rebuilt? |
And before you are ready to trash this argument, I will admit that Bernie was good for the Republic. He brought up issues that needed to be brought up. He made the elites take notice and that is a good thing. Even Trump shook things up among the Republicans. The problem with Trump is that he went too far. Trump himself didn't want it to get this far. The Trump campaign reminds me of Mel Brooks' timeless comedy, The Producers where two losers were deliberately trying to produce a Broadway flop and ending up with a hit on their hands. Trump has become his own worst nightmare. He is a hit. Let's hope the public finally gets tired of this farce before November. American needs its Republican Party back. If for no other reason to keep the Democrats on their toes.
