The Founding Fathers envisioned a government resistant to corruption
November 20, 2024 5:09 AM   Subscribe

First, the Founding Fathers of the United States of America encouraged the people to be virtuous, in recognition that corruption is a problem that cannot be solved by law.

Second, James Madison, author of Federalist Paper 10 intended that the government discourage any one faction from seizing power by managing the sizes of groups that govern and are governed. Too few people leads to monarchy (order and oppression) and too many people leads to what he terms democracy (chaos which leads to oppression), in the center is the republic where order and chaos are set against each other in balance, where many mutually distrustful factions exist and naturally work against each other, and slows the pace of government. This inefficiency, used properly, is a feature, not a bug, as it allow all the factions enough time to gang up on any one faction attempting to seize power. Representatives act as moderators creating peace amongst the many diverse factions, and are virtuous enough to moderate themselves.
In this light, it's doubtful that the Founding Fathers would recognize the current Republican party leadership as being what they called republican.
posted by otherchaz (66 comments total) 15 users marked this as a favorite
 
And then there was this Greek guy named Plato, who wrote a book about government. It was called The Republic and it was about the system called Democracy. The whole conclusion of his book was that while Democracy sounded real good in the long run it was inevitably vulnerable to corruption/power grabs and would inevitably fail.
posted by Jane the Brown at 6:10 AM on November 20, 2024 [11 favorites]


I have been reading "The Greatest of All Plagues: How Economic Inequality Shaped Political Thought from Plato to Marx" by David Lay Williams, and it's making very clear points about how major thinkers believe that societies with sharp economic inequality are kind of doomed.

It uses materials from Plato, Jesus, Hobbes, Rousseau, Smith, Mill, and Marx, quoted at length with many footnotes, to demonstrate that many of the political philosophies underlying Western politics all warned against too-large gaps between the rich and the poor. And most of them also made the point that as long as citizens were virtuous -- or could be persuaded to act that way -- then life would be happy and calm.

He also makes the point that this notion of limiting excessive wealth and excessive poverty was usually buried by subsequent commenters.
posted by wenestvedt at 6:12 AM on November 20, 2024 [27 favorites]


My big rear right now all the incoming administration’s celebrity cronyism picks are bait to distract the sensationalist media while the actual work of fascist statecraft will be done by the most banality-of-evil type middle management ghouls from the ranks of the heritage foundation
posted by Jon_Evil at 6:13 AM on November 20, 2024 [55 favorites]


My big rear right now all the incoming administration’s celebrity cronyism picks are bait to distract the sensationalist media while the actual work of fascist statecraft will be done by the most banality-of-evil type middle management ghouls from the ranks of the heritage foundation

This is literally what happened durign the first Trump administration. His legal appointments were by the book, regular politics, and staffed ideological morons all throughout the courts. Its far more destructive than anything he said or tweeted.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:16 AM on November 20, 2024 [26 favorites]


Either you have a system of strict rules and enforcement that keeps everybody in line, or you rely on people to do the right thing. The first one is inflexible and may not be able to adapt quickly to changing circumstances. If it adopted more of the second, it would be more flexible, but now we have to rely on people being virtuous, and we know how reliable people are. Government is hard. Really hard. If it worked to improve the welfare of everyone, then it might do ok. But any theory of government that does not address the existence of money and the issue of power, the causes of corruption, will fail.
posted by njohnson23 at 6:25 AM on November 20, 2024 [7 favorites]


Federalist 51
> If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Relying on virtuous people doesn't sound like it was the intention if you go by Madison. However, relying on the self-interest of one individual to check the self-interest of another doesn't work when you have mass-scale alignment, much like we saw demonstrated during the 2008 financial crash.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 6:47 AM on November 20, 2024 [6 favorites]


> Either you have a system of strict rules and enforcement that keeps everybody in line, or you rely on people to do the right thing.

These are the same picture; it's a false dichotomy. Strict rules and enforcement rely on people to do the right thing, because people make the rules and carry out the enforcement.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 6:53 AM on November 20, 2024 [13 favorites]


And under the Reagan administration the smart ones embarked on a solid program of changing the rules to benefit the wealthy over the voters.
posted by Jane the Brown at 6:56 AM on November 20, 2024 [9 favorites]


These are the same picture; it's a false dichotomy.

Exactly. Madison created a political culture with no enforcement mechanism and no guardrails that aren't imaginary, like the impeachment process. Then all it took was people of bad faith to gain high office, recognize that the "traditions" aren't enforceable, and to do precisely what they pleased. That isn't genius.
posted by 1adam12 at 7:14 AM on November 20, 2024 [20 favorites]


I see your Federalist 10 and raise you Anti-Federalist Cato IV
It is remarked by Montesquieu, in treating of republics, that in all magistracies, the greatness of the power must be compensated by the brevity of the duration; and that a longer time than a year, would be dangerous. It is therefore obvious to the least intelligent mind, to account why, great power in the hands of a magistrate, and that power connected, with a considerable duration, may be dangerous to the liberties of a republic—the deposit of vast trusts in the hands of a single magistrate, enables him in their exercise, to create a numerous train of dependents—this tempts his ambition, which in a republican magistrate is also remarked, to be pernicious and the duration of his office for any considerable time favors his views, give him the means and time to perfect and execute his designs—he therefore fancies that he may be great and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens, and raising himself to permanent grandeur on the ruins of his country.—And here it may be necessary to compare the vast and important powers of the president, together with his continuance in office with the foregoing doctrine—his eminent magisterial situation will attach many adherents to him, and he will be surrounded by expectants and courtiers—his power of nomination and influence on all appointments—the strong posts in each state comprised within his superintendence, and garrisoned by troops under his direction—his control over the army, militia, and navy—the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason, which may be used to screen from punishment, those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt—his duration in office for four years: these, and various other principles evidently prove the truth of the position—that if the president is possessed of ambition, he has power and time sufficient to ruin his country.
posted by jedicus at 7:17 AM on November 20, 2024 [16 favorites]


Exactly. Madison created a political culture with no enforcement mechanism and no guardrails that aren't imaginary, like the impeachment process. Then all it took was people of bad faith to gain high office, recognize that the "traditions" aren't enforceable, and to do precisely what they pleased. That isn't genius.
1adam12

You're missing the point: there's no system that magically just works. As the comment you replied to wrote, "Strict rules and enforcement rely on people to do the right thing, because people make the rules and carry out the enforcement."

Ultimately any system requires the good faith actions of its participants. Any enforcement mechanism or guardrail is useless in the face of bad faith actors.
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:29 AM on November 20, 2024 [13 favorites]


middle management ghouls from the ranks of the heritage foundation
posted by Jon_Evil at 6:13 AM


The rumor is that this is exactly what is happening in our MAGA Louisiana BESE, the state education department. That the heritage foundation is providing intern labor to review teaching plans for "CRT" and Trans/ LGBT information

If those of you outside of Louisiana could quietly file a public records request for any and all MOUs between Louisiana BESE and non profit groups, those of us that live here and cannot file the request would appreciate it.
posted by eustatic at 7:33 AM on November 20, 2024 [16 favorites]


The weird thing about Federalist 10 is how the authors' behavior didn't conform at all to their theory. Like, Madison, Jay, and Hamilton are all agreed that the vesting of political power in a few large factions will breed corruption and leave them, in the end, unaccountable to the public they theoretically serve. And what do they do the moment their theory gets instantiated into a republic? Team up with Jefferson (in the case of Madison) and Adams (in the case of Jay and Hamilton) to form big-tent factions which leave no political space for the growth of other politically-active groups, and provide partisan slates to electors in a manner which basically locks in the two-party system perpetually.
posted by jackbishop at 7:36 AM on November 20, 2024 [9 favorites]


Oh duh, we should just put good people in power and keep bad people out of power! Obviously!

These people owned people. The continued worship of them as undead national patriarchs is the perfect faith for this diseased, backwards nation.
posted by jy4m at 7:45 AM on November 20, 2024 [29 favorites]


a manner which basically locks in the two-party system perpetually.

The structure of American elections did that. The combination of single-member districts (or a single Executive) and first-preference plurality (aka first-past-the-post) favors the emergence of two (or a small number of) broad-tent parties.
posted by star gentle uterus at 7:57 AM on November 20, 2024 [8 favorites]


Having two parties is not inherently worse than having multiple parties. The effect is that coalitions between factions are formed before the election rather than after. This might even be a good thing, because voters can see what the ruling coalition will be before the election. Europe certainly isn't fairing any better for having multiple parties, the far right is creeping into power there as well. The problems we suffer from are deeper than that.

Primary elections / having unelected members rather than MPs select leadership are worse problems, because these skew the field towards extremes.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 8:04 AM on November 20, 2024 [7 favorites]


Either you have a system of strict rules and enforcement that keeps everybody in line, or you rely on people to do the right thing.
posted by njohnson23 at 6:25 on November 20


Fed 10 agrees with you
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests...

...The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS...

...By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.
In other words, encourage the diversity of factions, and hobble the government
posted by otherchaz at 8:24 AM on November 20, 2024 [1 favorite]


One of the biggest wet-dreams of the hard-right for ages has been the convening of a constitutional convention, in order to re-write the constitution more to their liking. I find myself wondering if all this insanity coming to a head isn’t being orchestrated to make it seem like a “reasonable” thing.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:24 AM on November 20, 2024 [13 favorites]


My big rear right now all the incoming administration’s celebrity cronyism picks are bait to distract the sensationalist media

(A) That is a high quality typo

(B) Trump is still an ignorant, impatient dipshit who can't think even half a step beyond the immediate future, not a secret genius playing nine dimensional chess. His one real skill is that he's a really good carnival barker.

Saw a line somewhere else that went something like: Nominating Matt Gaetz isn't Trump's way of trying to achieve some other thing. Nominating Matt Gaetz is just Trump's way of nominating Matt Gaetz.

Yeah, you might see some lower level appointees who are more effectively evil than Dr. Oz or Gaetz. When you see that, it's just that there's a whole raft of lower level appointments that Trump doesn't give a shit about and isn't going to pay any attention to but that the various ideologue groups will. Not because of any intentional distraction, unless you mean distracting Trump.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:33 AM on November 20, 2024 [11 favorites]


It doesn't matter whether trump is smart or dumb - a president is not a single person, it is an entire administration. The really dangerous people are the ones standing behind Trump.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 8:34 AM on November 20, 2024 [21 favorites]


It doesn't matter whether trump is smart or dumb - a president is not a single person, it is an entire administration. The really dangerous people are the ones standing behind Trump.

100% -- Even during his first term TFG's primary characteristic was pathological narcissism. He's not even really a fascist, because fascism is an ideology and his primary ideology is "I'm the most important person in the room." The real damage of his administration is giving federal power to all of the fascist toadies who shouldn't have been let anywhere near the levers of government, and to whom he gives free reign to wreak all the havoc they've been dreaming of for years.
posted by Pedantzilla at 8:43 AM on November 20, 2024 [23 favorites]


I'm always amazed when people quote the Federalist Papers as if the arguments it makes are smart. If those arguments had been any good, there wouldn't have been a civil war within three generations of its writing.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:11 AM on November 20, 2024 [10 favorites]


> Trump is still an ignorant, impatient dipshit who can't think even half a step beyond the immediate future, not a secret genius playing nine dimensional chess. His one real skill is that he's a really good carnival barker.

The people he appoints, like himself, are effectively for show. The people not getting media attention are the ones already working on dismantling the government.

There are currently hundreds of transition team operatives visiting government offices to investigate their activities and collect detailed rosters. Paraphrasing a post I've seen elsewhere, a transition team operative at the EPA asked what the Office of Children's Health Protection was for, and when it was explained, he snarked "We won't need that."
posted by at by at 9:32 AM on November 20, 2024 [12 favorites]


I fully believe that democracy and socialism are perfectly good technologies for avoiding the pitfalls of power and resource consolidation. But they are inevitably and interminably challenged in that goal. Being a progressive means you will always try to renew and reevaluate the systems that emerge from the process as the will to power bends and breaks them. Being a conservative means you've figured out how to consolidate power and want to friggin keep it that way or reverse the fixes.
posted by es_de_bah at 9:34 AM on November 20, 2024 [6 favorites]


Where does this strong belief come from? Capitalism is a system that has shown remarkable tendency for consoliding resources, and liberal democracy, the great marketplace of ideas, is its political ideology. The political market is just as subject to systemic failure and direct manipulation as any other.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 9:44 AM on November 20, 2024 [1 favorite]


Even during his first term TFG's primary characteristic was pathological narcissism. He's not even really a fascist, because fascism is an ideology and his primary ideology is "I'm the most important person in the room."

An ideology, whether in respect of a group or an individual, is just a system of ideas or beliefs; there's nothing that says the ideas have to make sense or be logically consistent or add up to some grand philosophy. Trump has expounded all sorts of ideas over the years that sounded ridiculous to a lot of people but also won him a lot of support, and which his supporters made their own: birtherism, Ivermectin, building a wall, buying Greenland, tariffs, deportations, draining the swamp. Then there are beliefs like "successfully running a business makes you better at running a country" and "appearances matter more than actual success"—those ideas have had a big impact. How many vox pops did we hear around the election where people cited his business success as a reason to vote for him?

Some commentators prefer other ways of framing his ideology than as fascism; Sarah Kendzior calls Trump's America a "mafia state" along the lines of Russia. But I don't see why it can't be both. Italian fascism had a looser ideology than Nazism, and most of its elements look familiar today. Fascist Italy wasn't even antisemitic or overtly racist at first, although that changed. Mussolini's own political ideas changed 180 degrees before he landed on fascism, so consistency was hardly his defining feature.
posted by rory at 9:52 AM on November 20, 2024 [10 favorites]


In this light, it's doubtful that the Founding Fathers would recognize the current Republican party leadership as being what they called republican.

As long as there has been oligarchy or aristocracy there have been complete fucking idiots who have inhabited it. If anything they’d probably be surprised things lasted this long and they’d probably be going with the hard right blaming multicultural democracy and universal suffrage as the reasons for America’s ills.

What James Madison has in particular would be wondering about is why the hell the slaves were still in the country and why the land owners weren’t compensated even though they lost the war. He’d be right at home in the modern day GOP calling for mass deportations and the erasure of the 14th amendment.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 9:55 AM on November 20, 2024 [3 favorites]


Sarah Kendzior calls Trump's America a "mafia state" along the lines of Russia.

Kleptocracy
posted by Brian B. at 10:05 AM on November 20, 2024 [4 favorites]


This might even be a good thing, because voters can see what the ruling coalition will be before the election.

I don't agree. That is not how people's minds work - they don't see political coalitions and don't read political news, they are not wonks, they see a single option on the ballot. Period. I've said this before repeatedly but I'm going to say it again - people want something to vote FOR. A multi-party system is far more likely to give them that. The usually abysmal turnout numbers in the US are in part because people hate the two options and don't have a third choice. And the two-party system seems (at least to me) to be more likely to end up corrupt - two parties are by nature going to be massive, and will have less incentive to listen to voters - they can just say "what are you going to do? The other party is even worse!"

Of course the US has other major structural issues and there is absolutely deeper issues with hate and lack of social cohesion. But the two-party system does not help matters.
posted by photo guy at 10:06 AM on November 20, 2024 [9 favorites]


"Representatives act as moderators creating peace amongst the many diverse factions, and are virtuous enough to moderate themselves."

Which all works swimmingly until a religion (well an apostate sect loudly proclaiming its own morality, and that the nation was founded on their principles) comes along and infiltrates all of the parts of society that make up government. There is no mechanism that allowed for the factions to have oversight of religious change .. and infiltration (unity despite difference/ common cause).Then Capital aligned with the religion capturing the Press (who happily obliged by not asking religious questions of the factions), and here we are.

I am thinking of both the United States, and New Zealand here (also Uganda, Poland and Australia - till recently, Hungary, Honduras ...).
posted by unearthed at 10:25 AM on November 20, 2024 [2 favorites]


I dunno, I think that inherently equal member of the polity should get to vote.... crazy I know.... although I could be talked into supporting a 200 year moratorium on old white males voting....
posted by WatTylerJr at 10:27 AM on November 20, 2024 [3 favorites]


although I could be talked into supporting a 200 year moratorium on old white males voting....

And you wonder why young men veered in Trump's direction.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 10:54 AM on November 20, 2024 [7 favorites]


And you wonder why young men veered in Trump's direction.

Toxic masculinity? White male privilege? Men with hurt feefees who decided to vote fascist because fuck everyone? Please help me out here...
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:04 AM on November 20, 2024 [8 favorites]


This comment would be another good example of whatoutgrown_hobnail means.
posted by star gentle uterus at 11:05 AM on November 20, 2024 [7 favorites]


"I'm always amazed when people quote the Federalist Papers as if the arguments it makes are smart. If those arguments had been any good, there wouldn't have been a civil war within three generations of its writing."

Consider inventing a new form of government for a second or third tier country. Would you have done as well?
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 11:26 AM on November 20, 2024 [2 favorites]


Good grief.

I'm a cishet white male. I may not always be as aware of my privilege as I should be, but I try to be respectful when others call it out. It's not always easy to swallow my pride, but I know I'm a better man for doing it. If other men would rather run pouting into the arms of fascists the moment anyone suggests in the slightest that our cohort isn't beyond reproach, then that's on them.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:28 AM on November 20, 2024 [19 favorites]


I'm a cishet white male. I may not always be as aware of my privilege as I should be, but I try to be respectful when others call it out. It's not always easy to swallow my pride, but I know I'm a better man for doing it.

At the risk of getting derailed - I agree that is the behavior others should try to emulate and in a perfect world we would. However, I also am a realist and most people are not going to take kindly to being told that they are Bad People who should Feel Bad based purely on factors like race and gender that are completely out of their control, they just are not. Sorry if that doesn't meet your high standards of morality but that is reality. And the judgemental moralizing that America is so obsessed with (and I think has weird creepy religious undertones) is not helping things at all.
posted by photo guy at 12:06 PM on November 20, 2024 [9 favorites]


It’s not the factors that are out of our control (race, gender, parents) that we should feel bad about, it’s doing damage.

If its really easy for us to do damage and therefore we have to exert self control, that’s fair; swings and roundabouts.
posted by clew at 12:18 PM on November 20, 2024 [5 favorites]


The US has got at least two weird strains of inherited Calvinism and one of them is the impunity of the assumed elect, so if you’re dissing religious effects make sure to diss that one!
posted by clew at 12:20 PM on November 20, 2024 [6 favorites]


The US has got at least two weird strains of inherited Calvinism and one of them is the impunity of the assumed elect, so if you’re dissing religious effects make sure to diss that one!

I have no idea what "impunity of the assumed elect" is, but as an atheist who strongly (and apparently foolishly) believes in secular governance and the separation of church and state, I can only say this makes me feel even more strongly about it.
posted by photo guy at 12:29 PM on November 20, 2024


Many of the bad habits of calvinism that we have come to despise in religion are perfectly capable of manifesting in a secular polity, and much of the work of the enlightenment was concerned with finding a secular basis for beliefs that used to be grounded in theology. We got rid of god, but we didn't get rid of sanctimony.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 12:51 PM on November 20, 2024 [8 favorites]


If other men would rather run pouting into the arms of fascists the moment anyone suggests in the slightest that our cohort isn't beyond reproach, then that's on them.

No, it's on everyone, which is the point.

Treating these issues as some kind of personal moral issue is exactly the problem. You certainly can write off entire swathes of the population as inherently hopelessly irredeemable but it's probably a poor electoral strategy.
posted by star gentle uterus at 12:52 PM on November 20, 2024 [9 favorites]


photo guy, I believe clew is referring to the elect of god, not those elected by man; and the reference to their impunity I take to be the Calvinism that posits that each of us is pre-destined good or bad, and, for those pre-destined good, definitionally any action they take is good and so should not be censured.
posted by It is regrettable that at 12:54 PM on November 20, 2024 [4 favorites]


Treating these issues as some kind of personal moral issue is exactly the problem.

So much for being virtuous.

You certainly can write off entire swathes of the population as inherently hopelessly irredeemable but it's probably a poor electoral strategy.

They're not irredeemable, they're responsible. They made their decision and now they have to own it.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:10 PM on November 20, 2024 [9 favorites]


For the past thirty or more years, Republicans have been successful at stamping out whatever Democrats consider to be a virtue. Being considerate? Political correctness! Diversity and inclusivity? DEI-hires! Speaking out when others are threatened? Cancel culture! Helping out the less fortunate? Welfare spending!

They've been so successful at wiping out our virtues that we argue amongst ourselves as to whether or not we're doing enough to respect their virtues.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:49 PM on November 20, 2024 [23 favorites]


Relying on virtuous people doesn't sound like it was the intention if you go by Madison.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 6:47 on November 20


From the first link
The most impactful breakthrough I had while trying to wrap my head around the way he thought came when I realized Madison’s design genuinely assumes everyone involved is the worst person of all time. He, if anyone, would’ve assumed tyrants succeed in gaining power and he would’ve done everything he could to ensure the government survives them. It is from this starting point that we can understand the rest...The main problem to solve is that the government must be extraordinarily difficult to change. Change must only be possible when an enormous amount of people agree about how to change. If the starting rules are basically right and people can’t change it, the starting rules should be able to last...In theory, the design creates a durable government that maximizes freedom because exactly because it starts with no laws and its default state is to be useless.

I mean… who thinks like that?! Who builds a useless government on purpose?!

....The amusing thing about a government that does nothing by default is that the intended user experience is for everyone involved to be frustrated all the time and to feel like the government rarely ever does anything. Madison would say that’s the point. I want to think he’d also raise an eye brow and say, “why would anyone want this job?”
posted by otherchaz at 2:42 PM on November 20, 2024 [2 favorites]


We often say that the best leaders are the ones who don't covet leadership. Madison saw that in reverse order: create good leaders by making leadership undesirable.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 2:51 PM on November 20, 2024 [1 favorite]


"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other... The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People... they may change their Rulers, and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty... A Constitution of Government once changed from freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

-John Adams.
posted by clavdivs at 3:20 PM on November 20, 2024 [5 favorites]


I’m completely confused why young white men get blamed in discussions of trump. He only won 47% of them. So most of the young white men who voted voted against Trump.

45-64 year old white women voted 60% for Trump. Why don’t we trot them out? It’s all stupid anyway. Trying to blame a demographic group for the election outcome is BS.

There are, in my opinion, a few people to blame. Joe Biden probably being the most singularly responsible. We have been let down by the elites in the Democratic Party. Young white men are not one single solid block and certainly were not the sturdy back bone of votes that put Trump back in office.
posted by creiszhanson at 3:31 PM on November 20, 2024 [5 favorites]


For the past thirty or more years, Republicans have been successful at stamping out whatever Democrats consider to be a virtue.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 13:49 on November 20


From the first link:
People paying attention to politics in the US have probably come across the term virtue signaling. It is typically used to mock anyone that expect others to live for a cause higher than self-interest. Folks have claimed it is virtue signaling, instead of virtuous, to resist racism, homophobia, sexism, or to support noble causes like helping the poor. Instead of adjusting to be more virtuous, these folks want to resist letting anyone call them out for bad behavior. Often enough, the folks resisting virtue see themselves as patriotic too, without realizing they are at odds with the nation’s founding principles.

The founders would be horrified by resistance to virtue. They might even call it corruption signaling. Hamilton, Washington, Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, etc, all strived to live virtuously, though we may disagree with how they defined “virtue”.
posted by otherchaz at 3:40 PM on November 20, 2024


In N. Carolina, the outgoing legislature just lost its supermajority, so it's now stripping power from the incoming governor, and giving it to the only Republican in the executive branch.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 3:42 PM on November 20, 2024 [8 favorites]


Sheesh, very sorry for the derail due to my flippant comment. I should've stuck to "hey, democracy good, let's have the right to vote be universal". I didn't realize my line goofing on by far the most powerful people in the country was going to cause that derail. No offense intended.... please delete mods if you think I crossed the line....
posted by WatTylerJr at 3:57 PM on November 20, 2024 [2 favorites]


... The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People... they may change their Rulers, and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty...
posted by clavdivs at 15:20 on November 20


From the first link:
Many of the founders had studied the collapse of Rome....They knew Julius Caesar transformed Rome from a Republic to an Empire by leveraging the corruption of its leaders. They knew that a US Republic would face the same issues in the weaknesses of people with power. More specifically, they felt that corruption cannot be stopped with law. Instead, they would need the system to somehow encourage everyone to fight corruption whenever it was found. Their solution was to leverage our competitive natures and turn us against each other by incentivizing everyone to root out corruption in their opponents. We can’t trust people to not be corrupt, but we can trust them to use any means necessary to take down their opposition. Can’t we?
posted by otherchaz at 4:15 PM on November 20, 2024


I’m completely confused why young white men get blamed in discussions of trump. He only won 47% of them. So most of the young white men who voted voted against Trump.

45-64 year old white women voted 60% for Trump. Why don’t we trot them out? It’s all stupid anyway. Trying to blame a demographic group for the election outcome is BS.


Where did these numbers come from? It's hard to find gender, age, race combined.
posted by Brian B. at 5:50 PM on November 20, 2024 [2 favorites]


Metafilter: My Big Rear. Right Now.
posted by otherchaz at 6:22 PM on November 20, 2024 [1 favorite]


I moved too fast and not double checking my question to a chat bot which gave me sources, but I did not double check them. This is embarrassing and shameful and I apologize for not double checking my numbers.

I spent some time digging and found some interesting numbers here:
https://circle.tufts.edu/2024-election#youth-vote-+4-for-harris,-major-differences-by-race-and-gender

This shows break downs by age, gender, and race all together, but it also has educational background and doesn't match up with numbers from earlier.

My original point stands I hope (that blaming specific demographics is stupid and non-productive), but my numbers are wrong.
posted by creiszhanson at 6:32 PM on November 20, 2024


People paying attention to politics in the US have probably come across the term virtue signaling. It is typically used to mock anyone that expect others to live for a cause higher than self-interest.

That's not what virtue signaling is at all.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 6:33 PM on November 20, 2024


This happy ambiguity can flex towards either side based on what the people alive at the time want.

Bingo! There’s a reason that we are called to build a “more perfect Union” in the Constitution’s very first line. Those bums in 1787 recognized that the work is never finished. The system is imperfect by design because humans are imperfect by design.

This is exactly why I have a hard time with Originalists (“the Constitution must be evaluated strictly on what it says) and folks who deify the Founders. They were mortal men who were heroic, noble, and flawed.

In short, the design starts with almost no laws and is almost impossible to change.

I feel like I’ve been saying this at least 2-3 times a day during the last few weeks. The system was intentionally designed to be difficult to change. Not impossible, but difficult. It’s a feature, not a bug.

How many versions of the French Republic have been there since 1789? Five?

I mean… who thinks like that?! Who builds a useless government on purpose?

Um, someone named Vladimir Ilyich is on line 17 and would like a word.
posted by zooropa at 7:49 PM on November 20, 2024 [3 favorites]


Often enough, the folks resisting virtue see themselves as patriotic too, without realizing they are at odds with the nation’s founding principles.

I suppose this would depend on who considers whom virtuous. The Federalist thought virtuous over the Jefferson/Madison bunch concerning many things including France and England. But I think this fictional segment from Adams early days may say alot.
("a mob is no less mob because they are with you")

With-in 11 years the capitol was burned. one of the better ideas was to remove Philadelphia as the nation's capital for a federal district which after the burning, Northerners wanted it moved, the motion failed to pass. Having the capitol in a single state is inherently dangerous to a republic.As if the founders took Rome out of Rome.During the January 6 riots, governor's were preparing to send in troops. in short, state militia to repel a mob that the central government did not immediately respond too. The commander in chief did nothing and by all accounts instagated it.

basically a geographical political power vacuum.
posted by clavdivs at 8:00 PM on November 20, 2024 [1 favorite]


Madison was pretty clear that there was one kind of faction in particular that his proposed system was primarily designed to block: majority rule by the poor. He often puts his argument for a large republic in general terms, but since the purpose of these papers was specifically to win over ambivalent rich men, he also gets quite specific about which exact threats his system is designed to protect against:
But 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. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation...

When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed...

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking... 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 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.
posted by chortly at 9:10 PM on November 20, 2024 [2 favorites]


The system was intentionally designed to be difficult to change. Not impossible, but difficult. It’s a feature, not a bug. How many versions of the French Republic have been there since 1789? Five?

Probably good that France wasn't stuck with the first incarnation for centuries. The Terror, Danton's execution, the Directory, war with neighbours, and a calendar with a ten-day week and ten decimal hours in each day, all leading to Bonaparte's coup.
posted by rory at 1:38 AM on November 21, 2024 [3 favorites]


There’s a reason that we are called to build a “more perfect Union” in the Constitution’s very first line.

The reason is that the first constitution of the United States was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

From Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address (1861):
The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union.
Lincoln argued that secession was unconstitutional: "...if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity."

The Supreme Court agreed in Texas v. White (1869):
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
...
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
In closing: suck it, Texas.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:23 AM on November 21, 2024 [6 favorites]


I believe that one of the reasons the Constitution is very poorly written is that the Framers counted on enforcing norms and values via the out-of-band practice of challenging someone who tried to go too far to a duel.
posted by mikelieman at 9:49 AM on November 21, 2024 [2 favorites]


I believe that one of the reasons the Constitution is very poorly written is that the Framers counted on enforcing norms and values via the out-of-band practice of challenging someone who tried to go too far to a duel.
posted by mikelieman at 9:49 on November 21


hypothetical Public Service Announcement:
"Only YOU can prevent corruption! Remember: laws can't do what dueling does!"
posted by otherchaz at 12:33 PM on November 21, 2024 [1 favorite]


> For the past thirty or more years, Republicans have been successful at stamping out whatever Democrats consider to be a virtue.

Timothy Snyder:* "We have handed power to those who want us more alone, more deceived and more divided... In a basic sense, the negativists are all alike: Vladimir Putin and Elon Musk and JD Vance mock everyone who endorses a virtue or those who want government to do good."
posted by kliuless at 9:44 PM on November 23, 2024 [3 favorites]


MetaFilter: Sheesh, very sorry for the derail due to my flippant comment.
posted by y2karl at 7:18 AM on November 25, 2024


« Older "interpretation of the entire history of jazz in...   |   Dockyard in Kent, England searching for chief... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments