In any case nice talking with you and others. I like that people can respectfully agree and disagree with others… even if we havSOME differing viewpoints of the world… and even if we share passion for firearms, the outdoors, cooking, family, archery, etc.
That’s refreshing where people aren’t just screaming at each other.
I think the question we may be grappling with here is how do we hold on to the right ideals of the founding and Constitution, and I believe they were right, yet reconcile that with the historical record where we fell short of those ideals?
I am fairly well versed in US history, including the stains on our record. I have also developed over time an appreciation for understanding historical figures and events in their own time and not applying present circumstances to the past. Our American forebears grappled with difficult issues and had to make choices reflecting the reality of their time.
You mention Thomas Jefferson’s concern about Divine retribution for the incorporation of slavery in the founding of the United States. There was already a strong abolitionist movement at the time. In the original version of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson spent an entire paragraph decrying the evils of slavery. So why wasn’t that paragraph in the final document? They knew if the rebellion had a chance of being successful the colonies would all have to stick together. The Declaration had to be passed unanimously. If some peeled off and remained loyal to the British, the entire endeavor would fail. The only way the Southern colonies would come along was if they did not take a strong anti-slavery position. Therefore, the horrible compromise was made. And it was a horror.
Similarly with ratification of the Constitution, the 3/5 compromise was made with the Southern States. It was a compromise because neither side got everything they wanted. The South wanted slaves to count fully in the apportionment of seats in the House, yet without giving the slaves the right to vote. The abolitionists in the North insisted they should not be counted at all, unless given the vote. Yet a compromise was reached to ratify the Constitution.
At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the fledgling country was on the brink and it was clear to all the original organization of the nation under the Articles of Confederation was insufficient. It was not perfect, but viewed through the perspective of the time, I would argue ratifying the Constitution imperfectly was a better alternative than allowing the United States to dissolve.
Similarly, you mentioned that only land owners were given the right to vote in the early days of the United States. True, but why? Was it because the landed gentry wanted to oppress the sharecroppers and renters? No, it is not exactly that simple. There was a great debate over enfranchisement centered on how to balance the rights of the two groups. According to the Library of Congress, Madison described the issue stating, “the right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed… . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] …may be overruled by a majority without property…”. In other words, the concern was that landless voters could pass measures beneficial to themselves at the expense of the landowner. In the end, the framers actually left the issue of suffrage to the states. Many states quickly expanded the right to vote to all adult white males or even women who were head of household.
You can make a similar analysis of all of the difficult issues faced by the early Americans. Would it have been better for Jefferson and the other Founders who realized the evil of slavery to stand on principle and allow the fledgling rebellion to end? We can never know, however, I would argue that with the United States leading the western world, we have seen the greatest advancements for the betterment of humanity in the shortest period of time in recorded history. It led to an economic system that has produced more advancements and lifted more people worldwide out of abject poverty than at any other time. I believe the success of our nation was in large part because of the guiding principles of the founders as expressed in the Constitution.
I would caution that we should not throw out or discount those guiding principles because of the shortcomings of prior generations. Just because they fell short does not mean the values were incorrect. Rather we understand why compromises were made in the past appreciating history in its context. We learn from the mistakes and work to better realize the American promise. Ideas do matter.
As a final thought, I too have enjoyed the conversation. I suspect that while we may have some different viewpoints, we agree on more that we disagree. I share you general skepticism of politicians. I value our ability to have different ideas and robust debate and yet remain bonded in our passion for the very things you mentioned.
Your are right.
Evil does exist.
Interesting thread, just catching up on it now. As to the original question, does Biden/Dems want America to fail? Well, in a sense I think the answer is yes. But, what they are really doing is following the bidding of their masters, which is multi-national corporations who basically own all of our politicians (and media). The talking heads they put in front of us don’t really put two and two together for the most part, I think they are just as happy to do their job, which is to keep us divided, and the oligarchs in power.
The corporations do in fact want to weaken democracy because it just gets in their way, and ultimately they want to disarm us because then they won’t to have to worry about a revolution someday; they have long been working on consolidating power, and they are basically trying to “Westernize” the world (it’s just Colonialism vNext basically–secular values that they think should be universal, and of course it comes with a consumer-and-renter-based culture that feeds their corporate coffers forever). This is being rolled out in a way that basically replaces democracy (at first most people didn’t seem to notice but I think the pandemic was a big wake-up call–I know I saw everything differently after that). I mean this isn’t even a conspiracy theory they are blatantly saying it out loud when they get together in places like Davos (WEF). “You’ll be happy and own nothing,” and all that jazz.
I would take another look at RFK, Jr.–if you haven’t watched his speech from October 9 when he announced his run as independent, it’s worth watching. He basically just lays out the situation that we are in exactly like it is. His critique is spot-on. Now I don’t know if he can do what he thinks he can. I believe the sea change that is needed goes deeper than just electing a new president, or cleaning up the deep state (which Vivek also talks about), or even undoing corporate capture of our institutions. Don’t get me wrong, gaining back any ground is good, and those are all worthy causes to work toward, but I think we have to go further, and drive a stake into the heart of the mega-conglomerates, actually enforce anti-trust laws, and I would go so far as to say, we should have an amendment to the constitution that creates a firewall between big business and state. The founders understood well the threat that Church/State power had when it was combined, and so we got that protection right away, but I just don’t think they could imagine a corporation becoming that powerful. I think they have actually grown more powerful than churches ever were. It’s time we learned that this threat is real. The “religion” is now secular consumerism, and the Church is the conglomerates like Blackrock, Vanguard and State Street which already own something like 70% of all assets in our economy–I mean it’s trillions and trillions of dollars. How much influence does that buy? Well, anything you see in the news, any major political shifts including wars and statecraft, all of these things can be directed/influenced by this much concentration of wealth and power. Time we take back this country.
@alexfields, great post bringing the discussion back to the present day. I am not sure who is using who in the situation you describe, but I think their economic and political philosophies align on the creation of a secular-consumer culture with control centralized under a world authority. That body would of course be made up of the politicians and heads of the multinational corporations and financial conglomerates. They no longer have any national allegiance, however, the corporations still need the appearance of democracy, at least for the moment, so the politicians need to be the front and keep us divided. The politicians need the patronage and support of the corporations.
You are quite correct that this is in the open now. No conspiracy theories here with the folks in Davos talking and writing quite openly about their vision of the future. They can afford to be in the open because they are far down the road to achieving their desired ends. You gave several examples and I would add digital central bank currencies. The US Constitution and the very concept of individual rights (2A front and center), decentralized power, and a limited federal government are an impediment to the globalists goal. I agree we must take back this country. We do need to clean out the deep state. We do need to enforce anti-trust and other measures to inhibit anti-competitive markets. I think that would necessarily include laws that prohibit the revolving door between government positions and lobbying. There is also a cultural component that frankly, limited government constitutionalists are not good at communicating. I have attempted to teach my three kids the importance of individual rights and the responsibilities that go along with those rights as well as the principles of federal republicanism, limited government, separation of power. Young people are not getting these fundamental concepts, certainly not in public school. I will take another look at RFK, Jr.
I watched Vivek with Piers Morgan. Interesting- but not perfect. But Piers said he has a home in America and loves America. Vivek challenged him and said that he may love America but that he does not know what it truly means to be American in his heart. Piers is liberal and strongly against guns and some aspects of free speech. Part of being an American is embracing the Bill of Rights. And not always trying ways to shift power from them to the governments favor. This is what half of Americans are trying to do. Shift the value of those whether it be 1st,2nd,4th,5th etc to give limits of those freedoms to the power of the government which is antithetical to the purpose of the Bill of Rights. Piers and many like him are ok to cede the power of their rights to solve safety and security problems in out country.
Yes, they do want us to fail as a country.