Founding Fathers?

[TheSongSalad]

One thing I always notice when listening to political arguments is that people always mention something along the lines of 'The founding fathers intended...' or 'The founding fathers would have...'. I have a serious question about this. Who gives a rat's ass what the founding fathers think? Shouldn't the goal be to run a country the best way possible, not the way some people from two hundred years ago thought was best?

Please tell me if I'm missing something, because at the moment it seems like anything prefaced by 'the founding fathers' is merely an attempt to make your side of an argument seem patriotic. The only real argument I can think of for trying to run the country like the founding fathers would is consistency. If we were changing almost everything every 4-8 years, we would never actually accomplish much of anything.

How about you Newgrounds? Do you think that us guessing what the founding fathers would say is a good way to run a country? Do you keep a what would the founding fathers do bumper sticker? Let me know.

yes, I know that the last part is making the other position seem stupid, and I know they are not. I have an opinion and I'm expressing it. If you don't want me to spin my posts, screw you. The founding fathers said it was a free country.

[WizMystery]

You pretty much got it there.

[Odio]

The Founding Fathers were all stoners. True facts fromt he encyclopedia of RobotTaco.

[Ericho]

I think it is good that people think of the founding fathers as role models as they were undeniably intelligent people who contributed a lot to the freedom of the world. I am not to say they were not without their flaws. The easiest complaint would be that they had slaves and in today's society, that would be atrocious. While it is important to learn about history, we should focus more on how times have changed since then.

[Camarohusky]

Our laws and legal system are built upon the past. The past creates precedent and context for laws today. The reason people look to the founding fathers is to try and find context to much of the Constitution that, either due to wording or completely new contexts in today's society, where meaning is not easily gleaned. If we can find what they wanted, or what they would have wanted, we may be able to find a greater understanding of the law.

Now, this is a legalist perspective. People in politics use it for legitimacy, because stupid people are swayed by it.

[SouthAsian]

I agree.Look at Ben Franklin.Did you know he didnt like Germans immigrating to America.He is quoted of saying that they were too stupid to learn the language.He even called them "swarthy".Of course he was probably referring to Southern Germans.But if he considered Germans swarthy how white would you have to be to not be swarthy?

[Patton3]

They're people we ought to remember and refer back to, given that they wrote the book and laid a good bit of ground work for the U.S. as a country. So in that regard I think it's legitimate.
Although it's become a sort of verbal tic for commentators and politicians; "The founding fathers would have wanted..." and things of that sort. In terms of what is the best course of action today, I think you pretty much nailed it.

[The-universe]

Their admired so if you mention them it fools the opponent into agreement.

There's a similar sort of tactic when arguing about evolution. People arguing against it say "darwin did (X) or thought (Y)" while completely ignoring the centuries worth of information since.

[poxpower]

At 8/14/10 10:47 AM, Camarohusky wrote: stuff

yes, that

[Ravariel]

To use an illustrative comparison:

Isaac Newton was a brilliant man. Noone disputes this. However, mathematical theory did not end when he came up with calculus. Calculus is still useful, certainly, but it is not all there is. And being able to appreciate what the creation of calculus required, the impact it had on science and the world from there to now, and the debt a lot of mathematical theory owes to calculus is very, very important.

Invoking the Founding Fathers can lend credence to a position, however most people invoke them in ways that are fallacious and intended to pull people away from a conversation about the actual issue.

[LordZeebmork]

At 8/14/10 01:35 PM, Ravariel wrote: To use an illustrative comparison:

Isaac Newton was a brilliant man. Noone disputes this. However, mathematical theory did not end when he came up with calculus. Calculus is still useful, certainly, but it is not all there is. And being able to appreciate what the creation of calculus required, the impact it had on science and the world from there to now, and the debt a lot of mathematical theory owes to calculus is very, very important.

Invoking the Founding Fathers can lend credence to a position, however most people invoke them in ways that are fallacious and intended to pull people away from a conversation about the actual issue.

Your analogy is flawed. Unfortunately, government is not calculus. In calculus, there's really only one direction to go; as time goes on and it's studied more, we learn more about it. There's no regress apart from a loss of knowledge, because all of our new knowledge is logically proven based on prior knowledge.

Government, on the other hand, can go both ways. (Post-WWI Germany, anyone?) The Founding Fathers could very well have advocated better systems of government (Systems. Plural. They disagreed on a lot.) than the leaders of our government do now.

[Ravariel]

At 8/14/10 03:55 PM, LordZeebmork wrote: Government, on the other hand, can go both ways. (Post-WWI Germany, anyone?) The Founding Fathers could very well have advocated better systems of government (Systems. Plural. They disagreed on a lot.) than the leaders of our government do now.

"Can" yes, but very seldom does. And in many societies, technical and mathematical abilities have, indeed, reverted to earlier, simpler, or poorer states. Usually through isolation and a lack of necessary specialization. Both events are rare and require a specific set of rather drastic circumstances. War, poverty, isolation... all of these can lead to a loss of both political and technological prowess.

The founding fathers may have proposed the best possible system, but assuming they did, and that advances have not or can not be made I believe is selling ourselves short.

[sword-master1]

The thing that many people seem to either forget or not notice is that the Founding Fathers had different views about how government should be run and what rights the people should have. Some believed that slavery should not be allowed while others believed that there wasn't a problem with slavery; some believed that the government shouldn't be allowed to force people to pay taxes while others believed that taxes were necessary to keep the people safe. In the end, most of the rights we have through the Founding Fathers were the results of compromising between two different sides. This is the very basis of why there are separation of powers in the government.

But there is one thing that is certain: the Founding Fathers believed that the power in America should be held by the people and the states, not the federal government. In the 10th amendment, the Founding Fathers state that any governing power not listed in the constitution is to be held by the state and local governments. This was to try and make sure that the federal government didn't exceed its powers beyond a certain point, which it clearly has done so by now through abusing the wording of the constitution to suit the federal government's wants.

So when people often wonder what the Founding Fathers would think or say about certain issues, I personally think that the answer would be that they would believe that the issue is best left to the state and local governments, not the federal government.

[SmilezRoyale]

A general appeal to the founding fathers, or to the sacred texts as an argument in itself is an ethos argument. It only has appeal because people respect the founding fathers.

The things they say are not necessarilly right or wrong, however. But that should be obvious.

I don't care what the FF's think, a few of them made good arguments, but it doesn't matter that THEY made them.

[LordZeebmork]

At 8/14/10 04:45 PM, Ravariel wrote: "Can" yes, but very seldom does.

It does all the time. I'd give recent examples, but they'd just reflect my own political bias, so... Look at every passed piece of legislation, every executive order, and every judicial decision in the last year. Is it that hard to believe that at least one of them will have a negative effect on the country?

And in many societies, technical and mathematical abilities have, indeed, reverted to earlier, simpler, or poorer states. Usually through isolation and a lack of necessary specialization.

Due to loss of knowledge (loss of progress). If we take a society now and the same society a year later, the only way they could have gone backwards mathematically is if some change (mathematical proofs, etc.) had been destroyed over the span of a year. But the destruction of political change (legislation, court decisions, whatever) could lead to either a better or a worse society; if a democratic government voted to replace itself with a dictatorship led by a bloodthirsty maniac with no concern for his people, the affected society would probably be better off if that information were erased.

The founding fathers may have proposed the best possible system, but assuming they did, and that advances have not or can not be made I believe is selling ourselves short.

It's not assuming that they proposed the best possible system. It's assuming that at least one of their systems is better than any system that could be proposed now. An easy conclusion to draw if you're a social libertarian, a fiscal conservative, or a localist, considering the pro-government expansion, pro-entitlements, pro-federal government context of modern American politics.

[InsertFunnyUserName]

I get the sense that in a lot of instances, the founding fathers are brought up as a kind of strawman argument when the focus should be on whether or not the legislation in question will do good for the country and for the system. In the majority of cases, unless the issue comes down to a constitutional debate, whether the founding fathers would have supported putting health care in the hands of the government, just as an example, isn't something to which the opinions of the founding fathers is pertinent. It comes down to whether or not a national health care system would be plausible and effective (I emphasize again that this is just an example and I don't want to derail too much into a health care debate).

It is true that the founding fathers had some great ideas and their opinion is certainly something to take into consideration when need be, but it can only be a legitimate argument when we're analyzing the semantics of the constitution.

[Camarohusky]

At 8/14/10 10:22 PM, sword-master1 wrote: But there is one thing that is certain: the Founding Fathers believed that the power in America should be held by the people and the states, not the federal government.

I would highly disagree with this. While many of the Founding Fathers supported state power, there was a very strong contingent who were for a very strong government. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison are just a few.

In the 10th amendment, the Founding Fathers state that any governing power not listed in the constitution is to be held by the state and local governments.

The Founding Fathers put this in as a concession to the states. The Bill of rights was not added aby the will of the Founding Fathers as a whole. It was a major compromise that allowed the US Constitution to be ratified. Many people, me included view it as nothing more than a truism. Rather than meaning "States are reserved specific rights" I see it as the very true phrase "Anything the Federal government has not done is in the right of the states to govern." The Constitution already heavily limits the Federal Government. The Tenth Amendment does nothing more than restate the obvious.

So when people often wonder what the Founding Fathers would think or say about certain issues, I personally think that the answer would be that they would believe that the issue is best left to the state and local governments, not the federal government.

Again, that is not all that true.

[aviewaskewed]

At 8/14/10 10:34 AM, Ericho wrote: I think it is good that people think of the founding fathers as role models as they were undeniably intelligent people who contributed a lot to the freedom of the world. I am not to say they were not without their flaws. The easiest complaint would be that they had slaves and in today's society, that would be atrocious. While it is important to learn about history, we should focus more on how times have changed since then.

You realize you just destroyed your whole "but the founding fathers..." type argumentation where you make them icons that you act like atheists should worship elsewhere right? Just saying, I'll be using this. :)

Also I agree to an extent. Look, The Founding Fathers are often held up like some kind of gods or something. There is no questioning their intelligence and they're vision. But one of the things we have to remember about that vision is at the outset they very quickly realized they were not omniscient, they would not be able to see every way in which the country and it's society would change. That's why instead of making the Constitution a static document that could never be changed or amended, they created a process where it could. I think it's important to remember our history sure, but let's not allow ourselves to be shackled to it...down that road lies stagnation and the inability in my eyes to make this country great and keep it great.

[HooglyBoogly]

At 8/14/10 12:33 PM, SouthAsian wrote: I agree.Look at Ben Franklin.Did you know he didnt like Germans immigrating to America.He is quoted of saying that they were too stupid to learn the language.He even called them "swarthy".Of course he was probably referring to Southern Germans.

Well he was sort of correct to an extent. Look at the majority of Germans that settled in Texas. They refused to learn English, thus creating an entire dialect of German referred to as Texas German. While I'm not condoning his views immigration, yet, you have to admit that when you move to a country where the majority of the population speaks a different language from yours, you need to adapt.

I'll use the influx of Hispanic immigrants as an example. The legal language of California and Arizona is English. Would it be wrong to say that these immigrants need to learn this language? Absolutely not.

[orangebomb]

You also got to remember that they were expecting rebellions every few years {i.e Whiskey Rebellion, Turner's rebellion, Civil War, even the 1960's Civil rights movement in a small way}, and the fact that they would have to deal with European powers like Britian that were itching to get some revenge after the Revolutionary War. In that respect, they did have their bases covered when rebellions threaten to tear the countries apart, and empires of Europe that saw them as easy pickings.

As for the Constituion, It is considered the foundation of America, everyone knows that, but what they never expected is that future generations would alter it in so many ways, that if they were alive today, most of them would be shocked to see what else was added on, {The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, Prohibition and it's repeal, even the amendments for the right to vote extended to women and 18 year olds}. Add to the fact that America was supposed to be isolated from the rest of the geopolitical world, yet over time, they were involved with imperialism, WW I and II, Cold War, etc., and is considered the centerpiece of the free world, would have them wondering what the hell is going on.

Over time, the Founding Fathers' views had more or less faded, and future generations began to interepet the Constitution in many ways, some in a positive way, others not so much. It's almost a bizzare question of what if the FFs were alive to see America the way it is today.

[pointydagger]

I agree that we cannot always listen to the founding fathers. They had dreams of what our government should be, but now that we have had it in place, we cannot try to meet their expectations, but instead work with the realities that we have.

That said, they are incredibly intelligent and their ideas were for the good of the people and the fresh country as a whole. They did not show the lust for power, and they wanted to try and escape the type of government that they fought a war against.

They were dreamers as much as they were brilliant leaders. I think we lack those types of people in our government, so to look back at the most popular ones is an obvious route to take, just maybe not the most practical.

[TheMason]

I think a study of the Founding Fathers is very important. I think the vast majority of Americans are very uninformed and uneducated when it comes to civics. For example the Three-Fifths compromise was a means of limiting Southern political power and thus the means to continue an abominable institution. Instead most are taught that it reduced the black population to 3/5 of a human. That is not true at all. If the slave population was counted as a whole for the purpose of assigning representatives to the states, the South could block any legislation that would eventually end slavery. It was actually very forward looking.

Furthermore, I think the argument that since they lived 200 years ago what they have to say is irrelevent to modern society. The FFs were products of the enlightenment and well versed both in history and science. They understood that technology was going to advance (ie: eventually guns would evolve into more than muskets) and knew what had been tried. Earlier I refered to the Tragedy of the Commons, this article published in Science was based upon an analysis of collectivist grazing/herding commons used by European serfs in the Middle Ages.

Things like healthcare and Keyensian economics have been tried before. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was not a sociological/philosophical thought experiement like the Communist Manifesto...but a study of history and what works and what doesn't.

So rather than dismiss them out of hand...perhaps we should be educated on why they wanted things like limited government and made a system that renders government action on public policy cumbersome rather than easy.