Kev: Republicans, early in American History, were once called Democrats, before being called Democratic-Republicans, and then eventually just Republicans.
I feel, due to this stated fact, that the point given by Mr. David Edward Tipsword, though very poetic, loses most of its logical meaning and logical ramifications regarding the U.S.'s need to be a "Republic".
Laura: The post isn't about political parties as your are refering, but types of governments.
Kev: It seems implicative to me, since the first stanza is deferring to Democracy, which is usually considered a good thing by American.
Me: The meme clearly explains what is wrong with democracy. The founders hated the idea of democracy. "Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."
James Madison
Kev: Uh, perhaps you need a U.S. History lesson, Rich ...
James Madison was the 4th president of the U.S. (from 1809-1817), but that was not his only function within our Government. Madison's political views changed throughout his life. During deliberations on the Constitution, he favored a strong national government, but later preferred stronger state governments, before settling between the two extremes later in his life. In other words, he wasn't exactly settled in his vision of an ideal government.
Nice try of manipulating the perception of our strong founding fathers though, Rich.
Laura: Let's keep this civil. Rich was simply using a quote to demonstrate his umderstanding of the meme. The quote can be found in Federalist Paper #10 which was writen during the founding of our constitution so it's applicable to this conversation. What wouldn't be applicable would to pull that quote from him(JM) during a later time period where he might of flip floped his position. Many if the founding fathers had a similar view about PURE democracy, like Thomas Jefferson. Our country is not purely democratic, while it has some qualities of democracy (especially at local levels), it is more of a republic which is why it has been so successful. Atleast that's what this quote on the meme is getting at.
Kev: Rach, there was nothing uncivil about what I said. I'm sure you've heard much much worse in political debate--like our current President Vs. Hillary Clinton.
I don't need a referee.
The quote itself is clandestinely (Aand probably, unintentionally) misleading, as the quoter professes to have a flaw-free vision of government in his insistence on a "Republic".
However, as you quite adequately stated, we have never had, as the country that is the U.S.A., a pure Democracy nor a pure Republic.
Our country is hybridized, at least by the modern definition of the terms "Republican" and "Democrat".
This hybridization has demonstrated itself to have become increasingly unstable, contrary to your claim that our U.S. government has been 'sanduccessful', and as such, is in quite desperate need of reform...or abolishment.
Rich: “We are a Republic. Real Liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.” — Alexander Hamilton
“Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.” — John Adams
A democracy is a volcano, which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption, and carry desolation in their way.” — Fisher Ames
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.” — John Adams
"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent." — Thomas Jefferson
“Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subjet to caprice and the madness of popular rage.” — John Witherspoon
“We have seen the tumults of democracy terminate, in France, as they have everywhere terminated, in despotism.” — Gouverneur Morris
"In democracy … there are commonly tumults and disorders … Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.” — Noah Webster
Kev: Thank you for your reply, Rich.
Most of the quotes you kindly supplied sound a lot like "Fire and Brimstone" kind of preaching. As we established earlier, James Madison had varying views on his envisioned "ideal government" (my term). Since this is the case, it follows to argue, given Madison's ephemerally varying views simultaneous to his long history of involvement in the establishment of the U.S.A., that he may not have been, in fact probably wasn't, the only Man involved in the prototypical stages of early Congress whom had such varying views over the course of time. That being said, I don' t think the big picture is as fixed as the quotes you've selectively supplied might seemingly indicate.
In other words, those early fathers of the U.S.A. were in the process (emph. here) of creating an ideal government, and, as such, did not have a completely clairvoyant vision of what such an ideal government would look like. They were truly pioneers.
Even furthermore to the point, as I stated verbatim to Rachel earlier, our U.S. government consists of hybrid parts Democratic and republican.
I think what can be observed in the collective early documents regarding our countries' foundations of governmental ethics is this over-all sense of "balance between extremes" (term mine). This is substantiated by quotes you, yourself supplied Rich.
I find it interesting, Rich, that you are advocating extreme Replublicism when John Witherspoon spoke against "pure democracy", and there exists checks and balances to Unionize the U.S.A. between these extremes of Democracy and Republicism.
America is and always has been a Hybrid government, because neither pure Republics nor pure Democracies are functional whatsoever. Both pure Republics and pure Democracies decline into chaos.
Once again, in a quote you supplied, that so aptly summarizes the point I'm emphasizing here:
"... Those passions are the same in all men, under ALL FORMS of simple government, and [...] produce [...] fraud, violence, and cruelty..." (John Adams, emphasis mine, not aggression.)
Both pure Republics and pure Democracies can be witnessed from history as failing systems of simple government. Our hybrid government is nothing more than a mix between the two to increase our Governments longevity.
Nonetheless, and also within histories example, we can witness that there exists not any ancient or prehistoric governments currently. Each government has met it's rise and fall, and they will continue to.
For they are instruments of corruption.
The reason for my stating so is simple. Monetary supply cannot be removed from those that use it for common trade, and since everyone exists within that category, including politicians, the hedonistic nature of human ego allows "political theory" to be impacted by corruption such as bribery, preferential treatment, and power-mongering within the ranks of politicians. Always.
Without fail.
Every time.
The time has come for humanity's awakening. Government, throughout the entire course of history, has promised peace to people, and delivered war. Understand, there exists perceptions of reality that have been shaped by war-mongering, and government has had a heavy hand in how it portrays itself within our "reality".
The only solution is Compassion.
True.
Human.
Compassion.
In a word, it requires another hippie movement, like the one that existed in the 60's, but that huge quantities of that generation "sold out to the man" for (--a term that same generation coined, not my term at all).
Rich: It would be helpful if you would admit you are wrong and move on, instead of the blizzard of words on unrelated topics.
Laura: I try not to emulate the types of political discussions we recently saw from our presidential candidates. That's why I believe the most constructive conversations don't contain ad hominem acusations like
"Nice try of manipulating the perception of our strong founding fathers though, Rich."
Just trying to clarify I don't like to partake in political conversations that allow for personal attacks because it get ugly really fast and then most of the content isn't even relevant to the original discussion.
Kev: Please Rich! You can't have read my full reply in less than two minutes!
If you're going to take the easy way out and opt out after copy-and-pasted quote-mania, instead of speaking your mind yourself, then at least give a credible sound reason for it, instead of hiding behind clichés such as "blizzard of words".
The fact of the matter here, Rich, is that you clearly don't have an accurate view of our U.S. government's vision of an ideal government. Let me say it again, this time simply: You don't appear to have any I sea what your talking about.
That being said, I'll let you opt out without further ado.
Laura: Okay count me out of this convo
Kev: I understand your perspective, Rachel.
I admit, that statement in and of itself WAS an ad hominem fallacy, a shot at Rich's credibility, which is not actually part of the subject of debate here.
Me: Frankly, I'm tired of your condescension. I had hoped for a respectful conversation.
Once again, you're wrong. I supplied a number of direct quotes to refute your position, and you have in turn supplied nothing. No reference, no quotes, nothing but unsupported assertions.
Kev: Actually, Rich, all you supplied was quotes. That's it.
I, in the other hand, used your own supplied quotes, and have time, perspective, and reinterpretation that refuted your argument.
Contrary to your logic, my assertions were quite supported.
But I did give way to an ad hominem--two actually. I admit that, and that's on me, and I accept responsibility for that. But, I still find your credibility questionable, especially in light of lack of effort, less-than 2 minute replys, and the quote-spewing frenzy.
In light of that, I think perhaps my ad hominem fallacies were justified.
I am quite interested to hear your thoughts, if you'll stop copy-and-pasting.
I await your reply.
Rich: How interesting. The direct statements of the Founders are held in less esteem than your speculations.
You must be a leftist.
Kev: Oh, far left, my friend.
Far, far left.
No comments:
Post a Comment