While the government shutdown and threat of default are a thing of the past at least for now, there is much to be analyzed. A recent Stratfor report touched upon what the Founding Fathers would have thought if they witnessed this fiasco.
In the report, I found that many of the author's points were corroborated by the Federalist papers that we read for class. Mainly, it is the point that the US government is intentionally set up such that progress would be difficult and cumbersome to achieve, but it would also prevent extremist factions and spur-of-the-moment events from rashly altering the course of government. However, what the Founding Fathers also believed was that our leaders would be reasonable and willing to moderate. They would be appalled by the hard-line stances and divisive rhetoric that has come to dominate politics today. The Fathers themselves, according to the report, were moderate men who approached problems with consideration for all viewpoints.
Perhaps one line in the report best sums up what the problem with our government is today. "The founders needed to bridge the gaps between the need to govern, the fear of tyranny and the uncertainty of the future. Their solution was not in law but in personal virtue." Personal virtue is a rare sight in Washington today.
Lastly, a quote that I'd like your thoughts on cause I've been trying to understand this: "The republic of the mind was always greater than the republic itself."
A cliche question: What do you think our Founders would say?
Another question... What's the solution?
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/us-debt-crisis-founders-perspective?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20131015&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=title&elq=602ebaaf144344d6ad3282e603ae2618
3 comments:
In the beginning and the end, the US government is a government for the people and by the people - its powers and activities only go so far as to serve the interests of the people. To this end, the a common theme the Founders expressed was moderation - all the fundamental aspects of our government exhibit this theme in someway. While it's true that the middle ground fallacy does exist, moderation is appropriate in the context of a democratic government since the goal really is to serve the interests of the entire nation, to do the most good for the most people - and the differing views and fluctuating opinions of the populace need to not just be taken into account, but controlled in such a way as to prevent rash decisions. It is a perennial conflict inherent in the structure of our government, a tenuous tug of war between an eclectic variety of interests that drives our government, that sometimes gives the appearance that our government is stymied or stagnant. But given that our nation has taken many different turns and paths that no one expected, in times of peace and in times of tension, I expect that our government will eventually resolve itself and get back on the right tracks. It's only a question of when, and to what path our government and by extension we will choose to go down.
It is has always been an interesting hypothetical to debate on how the Founding Fathers would feel about our government and society today. I agree with Brandon that they would probably be appalled by the radicalism and self-absorption that is prevalent in Washington today. However, it is hard for me to call the Founding Fathers moderates. The nature of the government they designed in 1787 was quite radical for that time period. I think it is easy for us to say they were moderates because we read of the incredible concessions and agreements these men were able to make. It is important for us to understand though, that the Fathers were a homogenous group of white, middle aged, property owning males. I think that moderation was easier than today because the interests of these men were far more similar than members of congress have with each other today.
Joey makes a good point. The Founding Fathers were moderate by our terms, but they were radical by the terms of the day. Did they consider all viewpoints? Perhaps. I am not sure that they considered, for instance, giving the vote to women. Maybe they did.
Do you think that it is easier to compromise with people similar to you? Then why do so many writers, scientists, musicians, politicians etc. fight with each other? Many people in Congress are white, male, middle or upper class. I think, though, that your point is well-taken, Joey, in that the electorate that the founders were representing was far less diverse than today's electorate.
Do you think that there is a way to increase personal virtue in Washington? There seems to be an ambiguity present. Everyone is supposed to have the right to the "pursuit of happiness," but what if you're happy if you're ambitious? Virtue seems to triumph over personal gain. It is interesting, though, the founding fathers wanted their government to be virtuous but did not have a positive view of human nature.
Thanks for the interesting article, Brandon.
Post a Comment