The fundamental assumption made by the Founding Fathers

[Jackpine Radical]

that by its violation has made a mockery of our "democracy" (or "republic" or whatever) was that, on the whole, people elected to public office would have the welfare of the nation in mind as they enacted their political roles.

This assumption is clearly not true of virtually all Republicans, who are now bent on a mission of wreaking deliberate harm on the nation in order to allow the super-rich to loot the Treasury and the funds held in trust for the people, and thereby bring down the current Administration.

Unfortunately, a strong faction of Democrats, apparently including most of the Executive Branch, also seem happy to participate in the general looting, while seeking to veil their intentions under a mask of "moderation"--which for them includes pushing the general public to the brink of extinction without actually nudging them the last few inches into the abyss.

[HereSince1628]

1. It was realized quite early, that partisan politics would make statesmanship

a rare commodity.

Ideological struggles and class-conflict have long been a part of our politics. Unfortunately, now as a century ago we are feeling the pain of having allowed that conflict to swing far in favor of corporatist.

Politicians do nothing but make policy that favors the people who most support them.

The decision to abandon votes and the laboring classes that have a voting franchise in favor of corporate money that can be used to influence and twist the manner in which that voting franchise is used was made about 2 decades ago.

It has served the corporations very well to control both parties.

[damntexdem]

2. But it was also realized quite early that partisanship is inevitable.

Still, governance with partisanship has sometimes worked fairly well, with obvious exceptions like the Civil War, as well as like corporate-owned government today.

[kctim]

3. Do you believe

that the founders believed that government should control and provide anything more than government, when they mention 'welfare of the nation?'

[Whiskeytide]

5. The founders ...

...could not have envisioned what society is like today. It was a much different time. All they wanted to do via the constitution was provide a framework for a democratic government that could evolve with our civilization. I was always taught that they intentionally worded much of it in generalities because it was never intended to be a literal list of rules, rather its an outline of a concept for government by the governed. That's why so much of the current republican worship of the founders is misplaced.

But I can assure you that most of the founders would have abhorred the usurpation of the government by wealthy special interests. They were throwing off the yoke of a tyrant, and I don't think they would have invited another to take his place. They also could not have foreseen the impact of mass media, and its ability to persuade sheep to voluntarily line up for their own slaughter.

So, in answer to your question, I don't think it matters. I think they would have expected government's role to be what the people determined it to be at any given time, but that it would always either work for the protection of the people, or remain neutral. It would never work for its own self interests against the people - as seems to be the case at present.

[kctim]

6. Of course it matter

and while they may not have envisioned todays society, they were well aware of what an all too powerful government would do. That is why the 'framework' they laid out places limits on government and why they made it so difficult to change the Constitution. IF they expected govts role to whatever the people determined all willy-nilly at any given time, they would not done these two things. They would have instead created a majority rules democracy where the few would determine what was best for all, regardless of individual rights.

Of course they would not approve of how government works today, but that is what happens when people vote for who promises them the most.

[defendandprotect]

25. The Founders feared the power of CAPITAL -- and they were right ...

Currently -- according to Al Gore in Rolling Stone -- Congress is under the

control of oil and coal industries --

and I doubt that's something that happened just recently given the 50 year

propaganda war by oil industry/ExxonMobil on Global Warming at a cost of tens

of billions --


As we can also see right now, our Federal government is COWED by corporate capitalist

power -- as are our state governments --

[kctim]

30. Sigh, of course they did

and hifiguy has given some good quotes as examples of that. But, they also feared the power of GOVERNMENT, and since corporations MUST use government IF they wish to control the people, I am more concerned with the government aspect.
Why give government the power the progressives wish to give it, if the corporations can then use that power over the people?

[hifiguy]

8. It is painfully obvious that you have never read a word

that Madison and Jefferson wrote about corporations and banks. Considering that Madison wrote most of the Constitution, with Jefferson adding commentary as he went along, it is fair to say that both men would be appalled that corporations have been granted a higher form of citizenship than actual voters. Both JM and TJ viewed corporations as the most dangerous and insidious of all human creations.

[kctim]

12. It is "painfully obvious"

that you did not read a word of what I wrote.

There is only one entity that is powerful enough to take away our individual rights and freedoms, and it is not some evil scary corporation that secretly meets in the woods of Austria.
Because of that, I asked a question regarding the founders and what they may have meant when they mention 'welfare of the nation.'

[hifiguy]

14. The largest corporations, and their

trade groups like the Chamber of Commerce, as well as individuals like the Koch brothers, now are able to buy and sell substantial numbers of politicians at all levels of governanace. I fear honest representatives - those not in thrall to corporate interests - infinitely less than those who are owned by private privileged individuals and entities. They can be removed from office through honest elections. Corporate power is forever.

Thomas Jefferson: "I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our Government to trial, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Franklin Roosevelt: "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism-- ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power."

[kctim]

15. So, if you fear those

who are owned by private privileged individuals and entities, you can surely tell us who they are? Is it all of them or just the ones who disagree with your opinions?

And if corporations control the government, and corporate power is forever, why do some want to give government even more power over us?

[hifiguy]

18. The entire Republican party is

a wholly owned subsidiary of the C of C, the Club for Growth, Americans for Prosperity, Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform (?) and other organizations that serve as a potemkin-village front for the wealthiest individuals and largest corporations.

Unfortunately many "conservative" and "moderate" Democrats are also owned by those same people and entities. By their voting records and subservience to the powers that be you shall know them.

The goal of anyone who calls themselves progressive is to root corporate influence from the goverhment to the greatest extent possible so that the ordinary citizens' interests can be seen to rather than those of the wealth elite.

That you say the things you do on what is for the most part a very progressive message board existentially confounds me.

[kctim]

20. Confounds you?

I have read the rules and no where does it say that EVERYBODY has to be "very progressive" on EVERY issue.
I have broken no rules.

Hell, the majority of Democrats are NOT "very progressive" on EVERY issue so you should expect a difference of opinion or a hard question every now and then. That is how we learn from each other and how we can work together as being a part of the same Party.
Or would you rather everybody just be lockstep cheerleaders?

[hifiguy]

21. Spouting right wing talking points on a progressive board,

time and again,does confound me. Maybe I am missing something, but I don't think so.

[kctim]

28. Sorry

but being to the right of progressives does NOT mean one is automatically right-wing or that they are spouting right-wing talking points.

Can you honestly say that every Dem believes the same as progressive Dems? I support abortion 100% and I can guarantee you that my views on abortion make most Dems look like right-wingers, would it be fair or smart to label them as such?

[Angry Dragon]

22. Hi, I am on a definition journey

Please explain the definition of a progressive.

I have the opinion if one uses a word then they should be able to define it

[kctim]

27. Hi, I am of the same opinion

which is why I know and understand words before I talk about them. As I am sure you already know, there are many definitions out there, but I prefer Merriam Webster over the others as their definitions seem to fit the current times better with little bias.

With that said, I define a progressive as one who believes in using government to achieve the societal changes they personally desire, with total disregard to the rights and freedoms they do not. The 2nd Amendment is a perfect example, just in case you are also on an example journey.

[hifiguy]

29. Read James K. Galbraith's "The Predator State"

and understand, if nothing else, what progressives are opposed to. Then go on to Matt Taibbi's "Griftopia" for concrete examples of the economic rape of the majority by the plutocracy.

Progressives believe, economically, in making the benefits of increased productivity and technical innovation available to the greatest number. Progressives believe that as an enterprise makes more money and becomes more profitable those who make that profit possible - the WORKERS - deserve at least the same percentage of the increase in the size of the pie as do the largely parasitic management class.

[LanternWaste]

13. Or that blacks would count for more than 3/5ths of a person...

"both men would be appalled that corporations have been granted a higher form of citizenship than actual voters..."

Or that blacks would count for more than 3/5ths of a person...

[fascisthunter]

17. Thom Hartmann has talked about this at length

so many have no idea... they just repeat what they hear on TV or radio. I looked it up, and sure enough Thom was right. One of the few places on the radio where you find facts that back up truth.

In fact the founders were set against anything becoming too powerful, especially private companies. There was plenty of precedent for them to highlight as reasons to keep power and money at bay, so that democracy could have a chance. With money and power, any private interest could warp any democracy....

[fivepennies]

4. Lots of assumptions about the founding fathers

George Mason, also from Virginia, kept notes of the Convention debates. He decided not to sign the Constitution because he came to believe that a central government would not represent the states and the people well, and that it would ultimately result in the kinds of government that other countries had, the kinds our Founding Fathers were trying to prevent - monarchies, aristocracies, tyrannies.

Elbridge Gerry, a businessman from Massachusetts and one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, refused to sign the Constitution for similar reasons to those of George Mason. He too believed that the rights of the states and the people were not adequately protected under it.

http://answers.yourdictionary.com/history/government/what-three-delegates-did-not-sign-the-constitution.html

John Randolf tried to intervene with his own plan and thirteen other delegates left the convention early for unspecified reasons. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were out of country at the time of the signing.

What you had there was too few Bernie Sanders.

[indurancevile]

7. i think their first assumption was that only white male property owners were "the people," yes?

[fivepennies]

10. Yes. + 1

for their first assumption.

[defendandprotect]

24. +1 --

Elites were giving us our democracy -- !!!

"Equality for all" --

except it was a quite schizophrenic document in the end -- !!


:evilgrin:

[SlipperySlope]

9. They assumed a measure of accountability.

The founders put most of the power in the Congress. The house was to be completely reelected by the people every two years, and the senate was to be elected by the state legislatures over a rolling six-year window. The founders believed these elections would keep the Congress accountable to the people.

Big money and not growing the size of the House have made Congress anything but accountable.

It is amazing that 90%+ of representatives are sent back every two years, when technically we could replace 100% of them in one fell swoop.

If we had the same ratio of population to representatives that the Founders' used, today we would have a 5,000 member house of representatives. That would break two-party gridlock, would limit the influence of big money, and would certainly be more representative and accountable.

[fivepennies]

11. They did put most of the power

in the hands of congress. And a little over a hundred years later, congress abdicated its authority to coin and regulate the value of money by handing that authority over to a private consortium of bankers. And lo, here we are today.

[fascisthunter]

16. But the Glass is half full

or something

[Hosnon]

19. I'm not sure they assumed that.

The entire checks and balances of the government is largely designed to utilize self-interest. And Madison was aware of the problem of special interests (see Federalist 10).

I think they assumed the worst, and designed the federal government accordingly.

[defendandprotect]

23. We have "Bill of Rights" ... "because all men are NOT honest men" ... and they cautioned ....

that we should have constant vigilence to protect our freedoms --

Otoh, the Constitution they gave us is also schizophrenic -- !!

But they did also in other writings even refer to conspiracies between the

president and vice president -- sound familiar? -- and that in those cases

we should ... ready for this ... 'SUSPEND THE ADMINISTRATION" -- !!


The Founders also feared the power of .... capital -- !!

Which is what has overtaken us because we have permitted corporations to arise to gain

great wealth -- Gates? ExxonMobil 36 Billion a year! --

Especially by the de-regulation of capitalism ... which they also bought!!


:)



Easier to keep the toothpaste in the tube than to try to get it back in --

[indepat]

26. It's like the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are giving the

middle finger to most of our founding principles, including providing for the general welfare and having a government of, by, and for the people, and therefore, giving the middle finger to the American people in general by rather almost exclusively promoting the welfare of the uber-wealthy and large corporations. Clearly, none of these elected/appointed officials gives a diddle-dy-damn about the man on the street and what he thinks, wants, and needs. Wholesale corruption abounds and malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance of office are so ubiquitous, it is doubtful that our government can save this nation from the dire economic calamity and social upheaval our officials have already and are about to set in motion. :thumbsup: :patriot: