The Founding Fathers were not brilliant by accident. They had the advantage of having a classical education wherein they studied various forms of government that existed throughout history including democracies, monarchies, theocracies, oligarchies and dictatorships. It was from these studies, understanding the pros and cons of each form of government and how these various forms were impacted by human nature, that they crafted the Constitution that we live under today.
It is important to note that, when the Founding Fathers considered human nature, they concluded that there were two ends of the spectrum. A thorough discussion on this topic can be found in the Federalist Papers. I recently wrote to my Congressman and I offer the letter in part:
“Recently I reread the Federalist Papers. (By the way, it was a hard slog.) As I am sure you know, there is a recurring theme in the Papers regarding human nature, what was referred to as the passions on the low end of human nature and logic and reason on the high end of human nature. The Papers defined the passions as being vindictive, ambitious and rapacious; the high end defined as logical and reasonable led by a high moral code and education…”
These Founding Fathers believed that the high end of human nature would far outweigh the low end of human nature. They believed that honest, educated and moral men could come together to find common ground that would further the interests of the citizens of the country. However, unfortunately, they did not consider the effects the Federal government, by usurping powers that rightfully belonged to Congress, would have on the high end of human nature. Very effectively, the Federal government (meaning the Executive Branch) has taken most, if not all, morality out of the classroom. Additionally, it has also taken the very basic teaching of “reading, writing and arithmetic” and dumbed it down or replaced it with unnecessary and ridiculous ideas of critical race theory and gender identification (a topic of which I will have in another post). When do children take a meaningful civics course where they are taught the reasons as to why the Constitution was constructed as it is? Speaking of the Constitution, there is a description of the powers of the Federal Government with all other powers being left to the States. Try to find anything in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government the right to have any say on education. Why is there a Department of Education in the Federal Government? Governance of education is a right left to the States. In too large a part, there is not enough morality and education left in this country to overcome the passions as defined by the low end of human nature. Two examples: Adam Shiff, a Representative from California, is a consummate liar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Representative from New York, has absolutely no understanding of the Constitution nor the workings of a Federal Republic.
I am fed up with politicians wh keep talking about our democracy. We do not live in a democracy. By definition, in a democracy all of the population eligible to vote does so directly and the candidate with the most votes wins. In a democracy, the minority has no protections from the majority. In contrast, in a Federal Republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution. The Founding Fathers realized that the larger, more populated states, say a handful or so, could control the entire country without regard to concerns of the smaller and less populated states. They saw this as unfair and devised a system that would accommodate all of the states. Their solution is nothing short of brilliant…hence we are a Federal Republic. The closest we come to democracy is when we elect representatives, and even then, as it is presently constituted, is barely, if at all, democratic.
The reason that we are barely democratic if at all, is that at the District level (House of Representatives) citizens of that District vote directly. However, it is the influence of those who do not live in the district that take the concept of democracy to barely, if at all. Again, quoting from my letter to my Congressman…
“It is against the law for a foreign national or foreign country to make contributions to US political campaigns. I wonder why it is acceptable that people who do not live in my state, district or otherwise can make sizeable contributions, through PAC’s for example, in an effort to influence the outcome of an election for the House, Senate, Governor, the DA and so on right down to dog catcher? Why should Soros or the Koch’s or Google, Facebook and Twitter be able to influence who will represent ME? Why should “soft” money be allowed? My thought is that if someone is running for Representative, then all contributions to that campaign must come from donors resident within that district and with some limits as to amounts contributed. If someone is running for the Senate, all contributions to that campaign must come from residents within that state. If someone is running for DA, all contributions to that campaign must come from residents within that jurisdiction…and so on. I can also see limits on what a candidate may contribute to his own election campaign in order to protect the less wealthy…intuitively, I find outside influences that have the ability to decide who represents ME to be unequivocally wrong.”
PS. off topic. I have taken an exhausting poll and could not find one man interested in having sex with AOC. To a man, the overriding reason was a fear of her genes continuing to be propagated in the pool.