|
Post by rwley on Apr 7, 2008 9:57:51 GMT -5
This idea popped into my head when my husband and I were discussing some of the, well, okay, idiots, we have in our political system today. I made a comment in passing and the more I thought about it, the more I wanted to run it by you all here . . .
What would have happened if the Founding Fathers had been given the opportunity to see into the future and see what a mess we've made of their baby? If they could have seen how we have warped and misinterpreted and misused their ideas, would they have written the Constitution differently? Would they have used different wording? Would they have set up a different type of governmental structure? Or would they have just said "forget it" and gone back home and left it to the natives?
I realize our Founding Fathers were wealty elitists, we all know that. But they did want something better. I don't think we've honored that dream very well, and I was just curious what they would think if they could see us today, and if they might have done it differently.
Your thoughts?
Robi
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Apr 7, 2008 10:31:59 GMT -5
I'd like to think we'd all do our best to prevent a future we did not intend if we could see past the present. Of course, there's always the self-fulfilling prophecy thing ... like Anakin Skywalker causing Padme Amidala's death by taking measures to prevent it. Would the founding fathers have created an even greater monster had they tried to stop the future they saw from occurring?
|
|
|
Post by strangewind on Apr 7, 2008 12:30:55 GMT -5
I have to say that our Founding Fathers absolutely fretted every detail of the United States, and many thought that our political system was quickly descending into chaos or tyranny (depending on your political stance at the time) as early as the Washington administration.
Our Founding Fathers may have been elites, but they were not elitists. John Adams was the ambitious son of a farmer. George W. (I love calling him that, it drives some people nuts, for some reason) was a soldier's soldier. Jefferson, possibly the most elitist among the Founders, was also the most passionate about the common person.
Slavery was the abortion issue of the day. States often threatened secession. Britain and France were horribly disappointed with us a nation. Our nation became so divided that we had to finalize the Revolution nearly a hundred years after the fact, with the Civil War, a million dead, and an assassinated President.
Uh, so, what was to fortell? I think our Founders weren't futurists: they were realists. They "saw" the future and compromised on slavery (which was hated as sin by at least a large minority of leaders), they compromised on government, they compromised on the Constitution (parts of which, at the time, were despised by various factions. One thing I find fascinating is how, no matter how deeply we dispute things today, everyone appeals to the Constitution now. This was not always the case. ) The American invention is its citizens' WIP.
I think had the founders seen the future, they would have done the prudent thing, and left the draft to be edited after revisions, not before. Which is exactly what they did anyhow.
Or else John Hancock would have stepped on a butterfly, altering our ecosystem to the point where hybrid pteradactyls now reign over our skies.
One of the two. Time travel always leaves me confused.
A good piece of fiction to read in this regard is Rip Van Winkle. Instead of a time machine, he just fell asleep after the Revolution, to wake up years later in a young America.
|
|
|
Post by rwley on Apr 7, 2008 13:07:56 GMT -5
I guess what I'm getting at is the politicians themselves. Our Founding Fathers saw participation in government as a civil duty, a responsibility and a privilege; not a career and certainly not as our politicians today regard public office. They wanted a system whereby the common man did have a right to actively participate. That right is still with us, but we all know that if a person really wants to run for public office, and actually help the people in his community, it's not likely to happen like that. Public office, at whatever level, has become an end unto itself. It seems, just from what I have observed, that unless you have tons of money or know people with tons of money, you're not likely to be able to get in the running, much less get elected. And while there are exceptions, most politicians want the power and the notoriety that comes with public office, not necessarily the responsibility to their constituents. The PAC's and the special interest groups are out of hand. Not all lobbyists are evil, not all special interest groups are evil, but there's enough graft and favoritism that I really think theyve mostly gotten far away from the original intent of our Founding Fathers. Yes, they had to make compromises, slavery for instance, and yes they were still dealing with that 100 years later. But what would they have to say about "career" politicians? Those whose sole intent is to hold public office for as long as possible and gain as much power as possible without any real intent to truly help the country. And we know they're out there; far too many of them as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, maybe I'm just venting and there's nothing to all of this.
Robi
|
|
|
Post by strangewind on Apr 7, 2008 13:24:13 GMT -5
Well, I think we know what Washington would say, if he ever said anything, about "career politicians." A lot of Founders dreaded what might happen to this country if political parties formed (as they did during Washington's first term) or if [gasp!] political leaders participated in their own political campaigns.
I'd love it if our politicians were barred from campaigning - if their respective parties did that work, while the elected official (or challenger) was allowed to perform their respective work functions. I can't stand PACs, but not because they give money to politicians, but because of the secrecy.
Our democracy should be transparent. I don't care if Bill Gates gives $3 billion, out of pocket, to Paris Hilton's presidential campaign -- I just want her campaign to have to disclose the real source of funding.
I say take of any semblance of funding limits, and eliminate the counterproductive "campaign reforms". Let the chips fall where they may, and I think we'll prove the lie to the adage that "money wins elections."
Frankly, if a leader is particularly suited for politics, I don't mind if they remain entrenched in politics as a career. What I object to is mediocre (or worse) politicians hanging on to power because they are insiders who know how to game the system.
What you are asking for is more patriots. I totally concur with that sentiment. It is worth noting, however, that even at the start (and during) the Revolution, there was a grave concern that there were not enough patriots among us to be successful.
Robi, you ought to run for office!
|
|
|
Post by Divides the Waters on Apr 7, 2008 13:25:57 GMT -5
Or else John Hancock would have stepped on a butterfly, altering our ecosystem to the point where hybrid pteradactyls now reign over our skies. Now there's a reality I can dig. Can we try it? ;D
|
|
|
Post by rwley on Apr 7, 2008 20:30:39 GMT -5
"Robi, you ought to run for office!" There's not enough money in the world. Besides, they wouldn't like me. I have no tact when it comes to idiocy, and I'd make too many people mad when I tell they are nothing but arrogant windbags who have no idea how the American people really live, much less how to improve our lives. They wouldn't like the fact that I would challenge them on every freedom they spout but don't practice and I'd have to tell the media that most of the stuff they want to report is none of their cotton-pickin' business.
No, I don't think America's ready for quite that much honesty. And I can't afford to run for office. No money, no name, no degree, no nothin' but opinion.
Robi
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Gerke on Apr 8, 2008 8:08:30 GMT -5
I like Winston Churchill's quote: "Democracy is the worst form of government--except all the others that have been tried."
Despite all the idiocy we see, I'd still rather live under our system of government than any other in the world.
Still, as cyberpunk author John Gregory Betancourt said, maybe there could be another way: "There is no such thing as a perfect government. The closest to perfection Man has yet come is a benign dictatorship. Government by committee has always led to corruption, and always will."
I dunno.
Now, about Robi's idea that we would change the future if we could see what our changes now would result in, I think that's great.
When my wife was giving birth to our first child I was amazed at how the anesthesiologist worked. He would put a little of drug X into her, and see what happened. If things didn't go exactly as he'd hoped, he'd counter with a little of drug Y, and wait to see what happened. It was as if my wife's system were his petri dish.
Imagine if we could do that with the future. Add a little democracy and watch through the viewing device to see what happens in the future. Then wipe out that future (not thinking of the ramifications of wiping out whole "potential lives") and try another strategy or mix of ingredients.
Could make for a very fun story.
Or even a Horton Hears a Who kind of a tale (and what a fabulous speculative story that is!). Like he's creating and wiping out all these potential futures but then someone in one of them happens to become aware of this watcher and appeals to him not to wipe out their existence. Now he's stuck with that reality because he's become engaged with that human. So he's got to try to salvage it by the other means at his disposal.
Coolishness!
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by scintor on Apr 8, 2008 15:27:46 GMT -5
I have studied lots of history and soceities under various governmental forms. The conclusion I came to was that no type of government is inherently good or evil, but some do tend to work better than others.
The thing that makes all the difference is how good the system is at combating corruption. A total dictatorship or monarchy rests entirely on how corrupt that leader is. SAadam Hussain's Iraq is an example of a currupt total dictatorship, as is Stalin's Russia. In both cases corruption was the path normal function of government took. Thing were decided by what would curry favor with the leader rather that what was right or wrong.
The system that we have in America has two pillars that keep corruption from total domination. The first is the idea of checks and balances that we inherited from English law. We all hear this in our civics classes.
The other thing is the uniquely Christian idea that the leader is the servant of all. This idea totally changes the dynamic of the pursuit and use of power.
The main problem that the founders would find in our system is not PACs or lobyists, but that the division of power between the branches of gonernment is not as designed and that politicians have forgotten the meaning of public servant.
Scincerely,
Scintor@aol.com
|
|
|
Post by rwley on Apr 8, 2008 17:05:37 GMT -5
So again, the question; if they could have looked forward in time and seen those issues, would they have addressed them differently in the Constitution? Would they have set up something different? Or would they have scrapped the idea altogether?
|
|
|
Post by strangewind on Apr 9, 2008 10:31:12 GMT -5
Let's see:
Jefferson would see that we haven't been Revolutionary enough, and that the office of President is too broad in his scope of powers. He'd be absolutely baffled by the number of cabinet positions, and sickened by the IRS. He'd also be disturbed by the general contentment of the people.
So he'd vote in favor of retooling the Constitution to incorporate a regularly scheduled coup detat, and potential incorporate something akin to Marxism's "perpetual revolution." Incidentally, I bet he'd be in favor of of the invasion and overthrow of the Iraqi government, desiring a French-style revolution there.
Hancock would be furious at the growth in taxation on trade, but would be amazed at the economic and technological development spawned in the world's most free nation.
Alexander Hamilton would be insensed that the government doesn't have farther reaching powers. The "live and let live" attitude of the government of the 1960s would especially chap him, as he would have seen a strong central government engage in a violent shutdown of what he would see as a euphemism called the "peace movement." Sedition Acts would have abounded, and he would have tested the commitment of the hippies to their cause.
Franklin, on the other hand, would likely have found the 60s to have been a glorious time of sexual and social liberation.
John Adams...well, I think he'd find the future quite remarkable, and would be of two keen minds about America's prospects. He'd be amazed at the strength, breadth and size of the nation, but would feel that the country had become entangled internationally. On the other hand, he'd see our history of relative isolation, and that we only grew as a military power, and be satisfied.
Washington would see what had become of this country, and keep his opinion to himself.
|
|
|
Post by rwley on Apr 9, 2008 13:13:33 GMT -5
That's good strangewind. I like that answer. Just those conversations would make a great book! Especially Franklin on the '60's. Oh, to be the fly on the wall for that one!
|
|
|
Post by J Jack on Apr 9, 2008 18:51:33 GMT -5
I agree with the running for office, you don't need money just a really good speech on what's wrong and what you can change. Maybe even start a new party, I debated that for a while. A group of citizens who are fed up with what's going wrong with government and want to change it to something better. It could be done...I think, not a politician...thankfully maybe.
|
|
|
Post by myrthman on Apr 10, 2008 0:00:30 GMT -5
Two things come to mind:
The first, someone else's creation Paycheck (the movie, haven't read the book). A reverse engineer constructs a device that allows seeing the future and then has his memory wiped. But before this happened, he mailed himself a bag full of mundane items that help him solve the mystery of what happened. Don't want to spoil it for anyone but there's some interesting perspective on what might happen if we could see into the future. Granted, it's not politics, but it's interesting. Fun movie too!
The second, my own brain child, is the thought that August Moebius (19th century mathematician and mapmaker who discovered a surface with only one edge--the Moebius Strip) actually discovered how to manipulate time and therefore travel through it. He fakes his own death and travels to our era or the near future and then goes clinically insane when he learns how little regard the world has for his discoveries and contributions to math and maps. We use them but don't give credit unless it's as a cheap toy for children. He is, of course, a villain in a superhero-type story, but also one of my fave characters. (I think my latest rendition of him is another, lesser-known guy--I can't even remember his name right now!--who simultaneously discovered the Strip and goes mad when he learns it was named after "that other guy" and not himself. Same powers, ego, etc....just a different reason for the insanity).
|
|