Did the Founders Hate Government?

[matmar]

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/03/22/did-the-founders-hate-government/

Exclusive: Orwell’s insight – that who controls the present controls the past, and who controls the past controls the future – could apply to the American political debate in which the Right has built a false narrative that enlists the Framers of the Constitution as enemies of a strong central government, writes Robert Parry.

[HubertHeaver]

1. The Founders did not hate government.

They loved government. In fact, they loved it so much they wanted to bring the seat of government to their home shores.

[CTyankee]

2. Can we stop with making the U.S. Constitution a sacramental doctrine?

Read this article from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html

The world's emerging democracies aren't using our Constitution any more as their model. They've found better elsewhere.

We'd better get used to it.

[WillyT]

11. NO !!! - And, Yes...

If we want to change the Constitution, or even start all over, those things are possible by Amendment and/or Constitutional Convention... and I'm all for that.

BUT... ignoring the Constitution because the aforementioned procedures are a pain in the ass ???

OH, HELL NO !!!

[CTyankee]

17. I don't want to get into a long rant on this except to say that what you are saying strikes

me as part of the "American Exceptionalism" argument, which I find incredibly shallow and not very well thought out. But, more on that later...it is actually a larger subject...

However, I will say here that I find your argument for Constitutional Amendment or constitutional convention, without a comparison model elsewhere, intellectually weak. I am not sure the Amendment process is the best way to progress and can work against it. Leaps to Prohibition, then back again, were a big waste of time and I scratch my head when I think about those two efforts. The setting back of equal rights with the defeat of the ERA in 1980, 190 years after the creation of the U.S. Constitution and women STILL not written into the Constitution, speaks volumes. Other countries have leapfrogged ahead of us and women in those countries enjoy rights under their constitutions that far surpass what we have in this country. Our Constitutional processes failed badly.

Second, you mention Constitutional Convention as a means to remedy our constitutional defects. Exactly ONE such Convention has taken place in U.S. history and that was the first one, back in 1797. No one is REMOTELY suggesting such a convention and haven't, at least in my long lifetime. For such a proposition to be a remedy, it has to be possible. And I don't see that happening.

[WillyT]

19. You Make Great Points... But I Don't See A Solution Here...

How do you propose we move forward?



And under what lawful framework will we be moving forward?

[CTyankee]

20. You know, I'm frustrated! I'm just at complete odds with a U.S. Constitution that just doesn't

seem to work for the people. I'm fed up with hearing about how great our Constitution is. It is not and the article that I cite from the NYT shows that.

I see countries like Liberia, Rwanda and Chile being led out of their near total collapse by WOMEN because the corruption and violence killed their people, and I wonder could this happen here? And why does it have to get to that point in the first place?

Time and again I have seen one step forward and two steps back for progress here in the U.S. You name it, union rights, women's rights, civil rights for minorities, it's gotten very bad out there.

I hope someone brighter than me can come up with a remedy. But when even SCOTUS justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says if she were designing a new Constitution today she wouldn't recommend OURS, I say something is really wrong!

[malthaussen]

22. Yep, your frustration is pretty clear

No document is perfect. Maybe the Brits have the right idea -- their "constitution" is unwritten. Many would claim that is a sign of superiority -- there are quite a number of Euros who think the US constitution is a banal composition of generalities. Of course, most of them have never read the thing.

Given that the US constitution is, by design, a work-in-progress, one could harldly expect that it would be one and indivisible and immutable for all time. The question is, are the principles enumerated therein of value, or not? What is missing? What is superflouous? To what extent are the perceived "flaws" flaws of interpretation? You will recall that there were those who were opposed to creating a written Constitution -- and a written Bill of Rights -- specifically because the words could be misinterpreted by men of ill intent. But any introductory course in literary criticism will apprise you of that potentiality.

Corruption and violence are not the consequences of principles, they are the consequences of ignoring principles. The state of the US is not flawed because our Constitution is flawed, but because men are flawed. Can you really imagine a mere scrap of paper could regulate the behavior of human beings, whatever its provenance? The purpose of the Constitution is to adumbrate the principles to which we as a nation aspire. It is for us as individuals to express those principles in action, or not as we please.

-- Mal

[CTyankee]

23. Mal, we do not "know it all." That has been our problem all along. We think we "got it right,"

just like that, snap, done! But we really didn't. I'm not saying some people didn't try. God knows, they did. Many good people. Many still do. And they are losing. Losing to corruption and lots of money in politics and the derision of RW republicans to distort and defame real reformers in our society. But you know this.

I just really want us to stop with the "American exceptionalism" stuff. We can do this, but we don't have the political will and the Constitution doesn't do much to require that we do, nor does it provide much flexibility. So we ARE left with a "piece of paper." "Adumbrate" means to "give a sketchy outline." Great. That and 50 cents used to get you a ride on the BMT line in the NYC subway.

When I see that women and children in Scandinavian countries have a constitutional right to the care and services they and their families need (and their countries rely on for their economic progress!) I wonder, what happened to us? Why aren't we doing this? When I see that gun deaths on a U.S. scale are vastly above what they are in France and Belgium, I wonder what happened to us? When I see that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would prefer the Constitution of South Africa (as noted in the NYT article) I wonder, what happened to us?

These other countries don't just "adumbrate." They DO. To quote Yoda: "Do or not. There is no try."

[malthaussen]

26. Also means "to bring out of shadow,"

or, less formally, to explicate. I don't see where we disagree -- given that we both attribute progress to the actions of people and not to lifeless documents. And I don't see where I claimed that we "got it right," or argued for American Exceptionalism, which is a fallacy.

As to the Constitution lacking flexibility, I have to ask what you expect of the Constitution? The process of amendment is certainly tedious, and intended to discourage swift and ill-thought amendment, although obviously it failed in the case of prohibition and its repeal. The Constitution is not expected to stand-in for statute or common law, although there are many who think it should do so. (In respect of which, Bob Heinlein does an interesting riff in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, where the Lunar Constitutional Convention keeps trying to add their own particular hobby-horses onto the fundamental rights of the constitution) I think of our Constitution as both a touchstone, and as a summation of quite a lot of argument about natural rights extending back throughout Western history. I also think it has been wilfully misinterpreted by men of ill-will: the very concept that fundamental rights could apply only to a minority sector of humanity is such an obvious fallacy that only mendacity can explain it.

So what is your complaint? That American government has failed to live up to its ideals? No argument there. That the American people have failed to formulate a consensus that acknowledges the dignity of all human beings and assures their life, liberty, and well-being? Again no argument -- but you can't blame the Constitution, the Ninth amendment covers all that. Our Founders did demonstrate one signal failing, and it is clear from the language of some sections of the Bill of Rights: they failed to forsee the mendacity that would characterize many of those who would later review their work. I mean, just look at the 8th amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." There is no way a man of good will could misinterpret that ruling -- and no way a man of ill will could not twist it to his own interpretation. Of course, there are those who will argue that such ambiguity was intentional. After all, there were men of ill-will in 1792, as well as 2012.

You ask where we went wrong? Ask me a hard one. We went wrong when we began to worship Mammon.

-- Mal

[CTyankee]

27. Very good analysis. I would like to know more from Con Law experts who I admire and respect,

such as Ginsburg, to tell me her reasons for the statement she made about preferring the Constitution of South Africa to ours, in order to get into the finer points. What exactly DOES she see that is a basic fault of our Constitution? I see that you chalk it up to bad actors, not acting in good faith with what you (and I) discern to be the proper interpretation of the document. Perhaps that is precisely what she sees is its fault. You see it in terms of "if only" and perhaps she sees it more deterministically, "It was probably predictable."

I think I need to dig a little deeper into the research here.

Tell you what, I'll get back to you if I learn anything we could both use here...mkay?

[malthaussen]

28. Sounds good to me

Looking over the SA Constitution, I don't see much reason to prefer it myself... based on the language. It is, however, overtly more inclusive than the US Constitution, especially in terms of, for example, using the word "everyone," instead of "all men," which latter some people seem to think can be interpreted to not include... well, just about anyone.

I'm just going over the Bill of Rights, which parallels ours in most ways, but to me appears to contain ambiguities through which one might drive a truck.

There is an interesting disclaimer, too, from the South African Government Information bureau, who's web page I am consulting, to the effect that the Constitution is not an official government publication, which is... weird?

And citizenship is established by statute, not by the Constitution.

Updated: It gets more interesting later. The SA Constitution guarantees a considerably greater number of rights explicitly than does that of the US. This might be one reason why it is preferred.

-- Mal

[CTyankee]

29. glad you looked it up. I'm going to do so this afternoon. But I had a question for you.

If you feel that the SA Bill of Rights has fatal ambiguities, why would Ginsburg not say what you said? After all, Con Law was central to her pre-SCOTUS career as an ACLU lawyer and later as a federal judge. It would seem to me that that area would be most sensitive for her.

I'll take a look and get back to you (altho I am no expert on the Constitution).

[malthaussen]

34. Wasn't claiming "fatal" ambiguities

Any written work is deficient, it's the nature of the beast. Reading the document, I can see areas in which it is suscestible to attack. e.g., it speaks of "no unfair discrimination," then says "discrimination... is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair." That would seem to have a certain degree of circularity to it, as well as establishing the premise that there is such a thing as fair discrimination.

You don't need to be an "expert" to be able to read a document critically. Expertise would only be useful if the subject really turns you on, and then you could easily attain it by doing a little reading.

A Constitution is not like a piece of computer code: the latter is much more unforgiving of errors than the former.

-- Mal

[CTyankee]

35. You make a point about "discrimination" and I would wonder further about what Justice Ginsburg

would say about that. I am not doubting you (altho I didn't read that particular part, myself). But since Ginsburg has spent so much of her earlier career battling sex discrimination I sure would like to know her reaction to that. Her comments were made in the context of a discussion on what kind of Constitution the Egyptians should look to. That was during the Mubarek overthrow last year.

Upon a bit of reflection, the passage you are quoting or paraphrasing might have to do with such things as BFOQ in employment law (aging pilots barred from flying commercial aircraft, a church required to open the priesthood to women, etc).

[Posteritatis]

30. The idea of a constitutional convention in this day and age would be terrifying

I would not want to live under the result.

[CTyankee]

32. some of us would say we don't like living under the current "result" of our current Constitution.

I am dismayed, disillusioned and getting more so as time wears on...

[FarLeftFist]

3. They hated their ultra-conservative Monarchy "govt", but chose to love Democracy.

[Ter]

6. Then why didn't they make us a Democracy?

They went with Constitutional Republic for some reason.

[mackattack]

7. They hated democracy

Saying someone was in favor of a democracy was an insult. That's why they added all the limitations like, "only land-owning males" and what not. They said everyone else was a fool. Now we need to put this into historical perspective. Germany up until after WWI said votes fro people with a university degree counted as two votes. People feared the uneducated underclass because it was believed this group was more susceptible to demagoguery.

Thats why we have congress and stuff like the electoral college.


I think your mistake is in word choice not substance. They did hate the ultra-conservative folks who told them what to do. Baptists shouldnt have to pray the rosary and say the Hail Mary like catholics do. One example of stuff they were against. Yet the GOP today says everyone has to conform to one religion?!?!

No thanks, Ill worhsip or not worship in any way I see fit. GOP doesnt get that. Most GOP supporters are historically illiterate. Sean Hannity tells them what happened.....barf.

Cheers from the Great Lakes!

[FarLeftFist]

12. You're applying todays standards of democracy to the idea of democracy over 200 years ago.

[mackattack]

13. No, Im not

That is their words. It is their system. We have a constitutional-republic. republic being the operative word.



Not a democracy.

They did not like democracy.

Nor would they support it.

This is a republic. Based on definitions wrote both today and 200 years ago......this is a republic.

[CTyankee]

18. Well, true only to the extent that Madison and others did not like Greek style direct democracy.

And that is not the democracy we have today. Democracy evolved with our representational democracy. It expanded beyond the ken of the founders, who had a narrow idea of what democracy was. The same thing with republics. You cannot compare the People's Republic of China of the 20th century with the Florentine republic of the 15th century.

[former9thward]

4. The founders did not hate government but they did distrust it.

Their political views are put very clearly in the Federalist Papers. That is why they set up three branches of government with each having checks and balances over the other two.

[Posteritatis]

31. It baffles me that people have so much trouble with the distinction you just noted

Their previous experience with governments were not pretty ones, so of course they distrusted government in general, but that's a far cry from people at either end of the spectrum seeming to think they were anarchists or something.

[mackattack]

5. Wow....no

Not at all. I teach this to college kids. Here is the quick version:

The Articles of the Confederation were the rules we went by before we had the Constitution. Under the Articles we had a very, very, very weak central government and it was all about state's rights. So the national government asked for things like troops to defend the borders against British and Spanish. They asked for money to pay off the Rev War debt. They asked the states to contribute to civilization.

The states said no. Everyone was broke and more people were in prison for debts than actual crimes. There were open and armed revolts. There were rebellions against banks confiscating people's farms. We couldnt raise a national army and we couldnt create and maintain a navy. No body pitched in. They all expected somebody else to do it. When the national government asked for money the states told them to go to hell. It's the free rider problem. Good times, right?


So the founders got together and said, 'hey we have to sacrifice some of our state's rights liberty so we can have security and a working country.' They did just that and came up with the Bill of Rights and later passed things like the 14th Amendment to make sure that state's werent taking away things guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

Anyone who tells you that the founders were against government is lying to your face. We tried the limited government thing under the Articles...it didnt work. The South tried the limited government thing during the Civil War and there were surpluses of bullets, boots, and troops hoarded in states while the Army of Northern Virginia starved and bled to death. They Southern states said 'nope, these are our things and we wont share them. The "lost cause" was lost because of state's rights.

If anyone tells you the founders hated government, you tell them to read the Federalist Papers. They wont. But I will tell you this. It is 85 amazing, concise, and immaculatly worded articles on why government is absolutely and unequivocally necessary for a civilization to flourish and prosper.

This state centered approach favored by the right doesnt work. It destroys individual liberty (just ask an African American before 1964), it hurts defenses, and it keeps us from competing economically on the international level. Founders said we need it. End of story.

[Canuckistanian]

8. Hard to imagine

Suppose Benjamin Franklin had said he wanted to cut government down until it was small enough to drown in a bathtub.

What do you think would have happened to him?

[malthaussen]

14. They would have asked "What's a bathtub?"

n/t

[UTUSN]

9. Yep, they did/do. Just finished CARO's LBJ bio: Senate is a BLOCKAGE (kill PROGRESS) n/t

[malthaussen]

15. Which Founders?

There was a radical fringe who supported state's rights over central authority, just as there is now. It is false to assert that the Founding Fathers acted in all things with one voice.

I think the Bill of Rights makes one thing clear: that when it came to deciding between strengthening authority vs individual rights in the name of security, the plurality came down on the side of the individual. Things like habeus corpus, restrictions on search and seizure, even things like freedom to assemble and bear arms, all make the task of government and policing more difficult, as any cop will tell you. Our founders were not particularly stupid men, so one might reasonably expect that they knew this when then penned the laws. Ergo, one might conclude that they were chary of giving the coercive authority too much power. This is not to assert that they wished to give the coercive authority no power. The clique who pushed the Constitution through the State Assemblies and who wrote the Federalist papers clearly saw the need for a central power, and were willing to do some pretty underhanded things to get the Constitution approved (but that's another story). But some desired more central power than others -- which is why Jefferson proclaimed that his election was a "revolution," in the claim that he was not a big-government man. (Which was disingenuous, because he actually exceeded previous parameters of central authority... but that is also another story)

Tyranny was a big thing in the 18th century. Most educated men feared it from both directions -- the tyranny of the ignorant majority just as much as the tyranny of the greedy elite. Mind you, it is a fair question to wonder if they feared the latter tyranny largely because they feared they wouldn't be part of the ruling element. This leads into the "Outs and Ins" theory of the Revolution, however, and is perhaps not germane to the present question.

I sure do wish they taught this stuff in school these days.

-- Mal

[chnoutte]

16. If America today tried to form a United States

It would NEVER happen or if it did America would not be a place worth living in.

IMHO the FFs would be appalled at what this country turned into.

[CTyankee]

25. Not sure the FFs would even recognize a multicultural society such as the U.S.

Let's not worship the FFs. They owned slaves and women were considered their chattel (along with their children, as white male land owners and thereby entitled to vote).

[Bucky]

21. Hamilton, Washington, & Madison built an activist federal government

Jefferson may have been a small government man, but wasn't afraid to interpret the Constitution broadly when it suited his policy needs. But Hamilton & Washington put in place a government that actively encouraged the development of particular industries, supported the development of the financial sector, and pushed settlement across the Appalachian Mountains much faster than a laissez-faire government would have. Washington was particularly opposed to efforts by state and local government to resist the overarching will of the federal government in pursuit of his policies. It was all geared around a policy of developing a large export-farmer/businessman middle class in the United States that was historically unique at that time. Ironically, it was their political rival Thomas Jefferson who completed that dream by gaining control of New Orleans, and thus making the Mississippi River a lucrative export route for the next three generations of middle class export farmers. This is the soul of a government directed economic development policy.

[Shankapotomus]

24. Apparently they hated government so much

they formulated and founded their own form of government.

[TheKentuckian]

33. Clearly not. They did have a clear suspicion of concentration of power that

lots of us have elected to ignore in order to pass recycled Republican nonsense and/or their illusion of safety form boogiemen.