I wrote previously about The Original Argument which is an updated writing of the Federalist Papers. I have moved around the book reading different Papers as I have time. It really is unfortunate that more people are not familiar with the Federalist Papers for in this contemporaneous writing we have the theories, rationale and reasoning underlying our Constitution. What is truly amazing in reading the Federalist Papers is how well our Founders understood human nature. Power, politics, greed, fallibilities, bias, conflicting interests, oppression. There is nothing going on today that they did not anticipate.
Due to the intelligence and insights of our Founding Fathers they wrote a document that considered all of the above and more in writing the U.S. Constitution. They knew that instability, injustice and confusion within the institution of government had caused many to fail. They were determined to build a governmental structure that could endure for the ages.
Federalist Paper #10 was written to describe "How the Union Will Act as a Safeguard Against Domestic Division and Rebellion". They understood that opposing political factions were the greatest potential threat to any government and that in many governments the only redress was violence. They wanted to insure that factions could not wield power that would be dangerous to either the rights of other citizens or the common good. What did they see as the most common and tangible source of potential division? The conflict between rich and poor. Here are the exact words from #10.
The most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.
Where did they see the most danger for a majority to trample on the rights of a minority? Taxation.
The inferior minority they are talking about? Have you heard about the so-called 1% that is castigated continually by so many?The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
The Founders understood that those that governed us had to be a cut above to balance and mediate these conflicting interests and put the public interest above any special interests. However, they also knew that this was naive. The Original Argument modern translation puts it this way.
Enlightened statesmen will not always be in power, and even if such mediation could happen, it would rarely take place with long-term interests in mind, since the immediate "here and now" interests of the party in power would most likely win the day at the expense of the rights of the other party, or the good of the whole.
Our Founding Fathers were one smart group.
They also knew that there was little they could do to prevent factions from occurring. That could only be done by either limiting liberties or insuring every citizen has the same opinions, feelings and the same interests. Neither was acceptable to the Founders. They had no interest in preventing the causes, which is what Communist and Totalitarian governments do. They focused on controlling the effects of factions. Thus, they constructed a republican governmental framework with an ultimate goal of securing both the public good and private rights against the dangers of an oppressive majority faction. Everything in the Constitution was built on this foundational principle.
They built a government which derived all of its power directly or indirectly from the People, administered by representatives who hold their offices at the pleasure of the People, for a limited period of time, or during good behavior. Using different time periods for holding office, including the separation of powers between the three branches of the federal government and limiting the power of the federal government relative to the states were all important foundational principles to achieve their overarching goal of facilitating majority rule but protecting minority rights.
Perhaps most applicable to today is what Federalist #10 says in the second to last paragraph. It explains why they set up the republican form of govenrment we have and not a democracy or parliamentarian system. It literally stopped me in my tracks when I read it. I re-read it several times in The Original Argument and then went to the actual Federalist Papers to read it exactly as it was written. There could not be a better example to show how far we have deviated from the path the Founders established and why they set up safeguards in the Constitution to protect the People. It reads as follows with the bold emphasis being mine:
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
How much more relevant can you be to what we have seen in recent years in this country, most particularly in the Obama Administration? The Founders found all of these to be "improper or wicked projects"by dangerous factions. These were the types of government abuses they were trying to prevent. However, we see calls for each of these "projects" almost everyday from those in power in Washington.
- a rage of paper money (what is the Federal Reserve doing?)
- an abolition of debt (what was done to the secured creditors in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, with the bailout of Wall Street? What do we hear should be done about mortgage and student loan debt by many liberals?)
- for an equal division of property (Redistribution of income and wealth through a focus on taxing the rich, in particular the very small 1% minority)
Isn't it interesting that each of these "improper or wicked projects" is also at the core of what motivated the Tea Party? Terrorists? I think not. These are the sons and daughters of the Founding Fathers united against the very factious leaders our forefathers warned us about.
It seems that if we are looking for guidance on how to solve are many problems we should return to some of our key foundation principles. It is right there in the Federalist Papers for all to see.
It seems that if we are looking for guidance on how to solve are many problems we should return to some of our key foundation principles. It is right there in the Federalist Papers for all to see.
The problem with this is that the "very small 1% minority" mostly gained that wealth not through ability and dedication - although such cases do exist - but through nepotism and outright thefts such as Bank of America. Meanwhile they're not paying taxes on their wealth because it isn't classified as income like everyone else's.
ReplyDeleteFurther, to describe the Obama Administration as wanting an equal division of property is utterly hilarious, given that he happily signed an extension to the Bush tax cuts, engages in corporate-friendly policy (including the affordable healthcare act - it's not socialized medicine in any sense), and has no intention of paying much more than lip-service to the idea of an equitable tax system. Anyone who'd call O a socialist is either a liar or a fool.
It's also worth noting that whatever the virtues of the founders, they were only men - and slave-owners at that. This country wasn't founded upon ideals of liberty, it was founded on ideals of liberty /for a select few./
ReplyDeleteI can assure you that I am neither a liar or a fool.
ReplyDeletePresident Obama did not happily sign the extension of the Bush tax cuts. He was forced to do so by the vote of the people in the 2010 Mid Term elections. The only reason that we do not have a single payer, socialized health care system is that President Obama could not get it through Congress. There is little doubt that he really believes in a socialist ideology. However, under our system of checks and balances, he has not been able to pursue his total agenda. The same would hold true if Ron Paul was elected tomorrow with a libertarian ideology. Our Founders did not want fast, radical changes. They valued consensus and most particularly the protection of the rights of the minority.
Please cite any statistics you have that most wealth in the U.S. was gained not by ability or dedication but by nepotism and theft. In fact, if I take the 3 wealthiest people in the U.S. (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Larry Ellison according to Forbes Magazine) not one got their wealth from family or by theft.
As to your point that the 1% does not pay their fair share of taxes, read my BeeLine post "How Progressive Do We Want To Be" post.http://beelineblogger.blogspot.com/2011/03/how-progressive-do-we-want-to-be.html
High income earners in the United States pay a larger share of the tax burden than in any other developed nation in the world. Higher than any country in Europe. The fact is that if we wanted to be more like Europe we would need to vastly increase the tax burden on the 99%-not on the 1%. This is where the biggest disparity in tax burdens exist due to the heavy use of regressive VAT taxes in Europe.
There has never been any country in the entire span of human history that provided more opportunity or upward economic mobility than the United States of America.
Our Founding Fathers had little to gain personally and everything to lose in the American Revolution. They were the ones that had prospered under British rule. They were already people of privilege. Their sons and daughters would also prosper under the status quo. Despite this fact, they constructed a system that gave more power to the People than any other governmental system in the history of mankind.
You are completely offbase in arguing this country was not founded upon ideals of liberty for all. No country has ever provided more personal or economic liberty to more people.
Could we do better? Absolutely. But no other country has yet to prove they can do it better than we have. NO ONE.