Mano -- This is going to be a long comment, even by my standards. Sorry, but there’s an important point to be made here -- eventually.
Good cartoon. I appreciate the way these characters can be used to bring us all together in a healthy way, sharing our national mythology. But it misses the bigger point altogether, doesn’t it? The real question we should be asking is whether the framers were oligarchs.
Charles Beard’s Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, which has always received short shrift from mainstream historians, essentially argued that the framers stood to benefit directly from the creation of a stronger national government. Most of them held bonds issued by the several states or the prototypical United States during the war. Hamilton’s financial plan, one of the first significant acts of the new government, saw the federal authorities assume those state liabilities and raise revenues to pay them. Ker-ching. The ratings agencies would have loved it.
Howard Zinn, of course, saw the framing in explicit class terms -- a clear solidification of the power of elites. And there is no question that the framing was a deliberate move away from democracy, particularly of the direct variety then being practiced under Pennsylvania’s radical constitution. Madison made no bones about wanting to protect what he called the public interest from unwise, fleeting popular passions. He was no Tea Partier, that’s for sure. But was he an oligarch?
The brazenness of the political theater we have recently witnessed has made me question even Madison’s sincerity. Did he really mean what he said -- that he was trying to engineer a polity in which virtuous men of distinction would pursue the public good in a disinterested fashion -- or was this the 1780’s equivalent of “don’t tax job creators in a recession”? Was he just as full of it as Mitch McConnell, corporate c***sucker par excellence? I don’t think so.
Events in the first decade of the new federal government tell me that Madison really meant what he said. There were two competing visions for national development at that time. Hamilton’s financial plan empowered the financial elite and encouraged industrialization, with concomitant stratification of society. Madison and Jefferson saw this as fundamentally unrepublican, concentrating power in the hands of the few. (Sound familiar?) They believed in an agrarian republic of citizen-farmers, each having a roughly equal stake in society. (Christ! That sounds almost… socialistic, doesn’t it?) The argument over these competing visions led to the formation of the two major political parties, which was supremely ironic given Madison’s constitutional goal to exclude factions from national governance. Oh well. Nice theory; shame about the practice….
For me personally, faith in Madison’s theory of republican government is akin to a civic religion. If the framing was a complete sham, there goes my allegiance to American institutions, and possibly to the very nation itself. But there is still something noble to cherish in the framing. The problem is what we’ve done since.
Hamilton’s vision of America (which also included a strong executive) has triumphed to a degree that even he would have questioned. We have become a global military empire with staggering wealth and power inequalities -- truly a Madisonian nightmare.
The American Revolution was fought in part because the founders admired what Britain was supposed to be, but despised what it had become. They did their best to institute what they regarded as proper, British principles of law and balanced constitutionalism within the limits imposed by a republic lacking hereditary orders of men. We need a second American Revolution to reinstate the true, Madisonian principles of the framing. We need to be -- forgive me -- born again Madisonians.
I am at a bit of a disadvantage here, not having grown up and taken American history courses as part of my formal education. So my knowledge is admittedly sketchy.
But from what I have read here and there, the Founding Fathers, while undoubtedly an elite that was a little fearful of too much democracy and sought to entrench property rights, were nowhere near as disconnected from ordinary people as the current oligarchy. Also while they were parochial (seeking to protect the interests of their own states) they were not nearly so petty (protecting their personal privileges).
Part of the reason was that they were meeting at a time when there was a serious existential threat to the nation, with real fears that if they did not form a better central governing authority, the whole thing might disintegrate. That no doubt helped to focus the mind.
Mano -- This is going to be a long comment, even by my standards. Sorry, but there’s an important point to be made here -- eventually.
Good cartoon. I appreciate the way these characters can be used to bring us all together in a healthy way, sharing our national mythology. But it misses the bigger point altogether, doesn’t it? The real question we should be asking is whether the framers were oligarchs.
Charles Beard’s Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, which has always received short shrift from mainstream historians, essentially argued that the framers stood to benefit directly from the creation of a stronger national government. Most of them held bonds issued by the several states or the prototypical United States during the war. Hamilton’s financial plan, one of the first significant acts of the new government, saw the federal authorities assume those state liabilities and raise revenues to pay them. Ker-ching. The ratings agencies would have loved it.
Howard Zinn, of course, saw the framing in explicit class terms -- a clear solidification of the power of elites. And there is no question that the framing was a deliberate move away from democracy, particularly of the direct variety then being practiced under Pennsylvania’s radical constitution. Madison made no bones about wanting to protect what he called the public interest from unwise, fleeting popular passions. He was no Tea Partier, that’s for sure. But was he an oligarch?
The brazenness of the political theater we have recently witnessed has made me question even Madison’s sincerity. Did he really mean what he said -- that he was trying to engineer a polity in which virtuous men of distinction would pursue the public good in a disinterested fashion -- or was this the 1780’s equivalent of “don’t tax job creators in a recession”? Was he just as full of it as Mitch McConnell, corporate c***sucker par excellence? I don’t think so.
Events in the first decade of the new federal government tell me that Madison really meant what he said. There were two competing visions for national development at that time. Hamilton’s financial plan empowered the financial elite and encouraged industrialization, with concomitant stratification of society. Madison and Jefferson saw this as fundamentally unrepublican, concentrating power in the hands of the few. (Sound familiar?) They believed in an agrarian republic of citizen-farmers, each having a roughly equal stake in society. (Christ! That sounds almost… socialistic, doesn’t it?) The argument over these competing visions led to the formation of the two major political parties, which was supremely ironic given Madison’s constitutional goal to exclude factions from national governance. Oh well. Nice theory; shame about the practice….
For me personally, faith in Madison’s theory of republican government is akin to a civic religion. If the framing was a complete sham, there goes my allegiance to American institutions, and possibly to the very nation itself. But there is still something noble to cherish in the framing. The problem is what we’ve done since.
Hamilton’s vision of America (which also included a strong executive) has triumphed to a degree that even he would have questioned. We have become a global military empire with staggering wealth and power inequalities -- truly a Madisonian nightmare.
The American Revolution was fought in part because the founders admired what Britain was supposed to be, but despised what it had become. They did their best to institute what they regarded as proper, British principles of law and balanced constitutionalism within the limits imposed by a republic lacking hereditary orders of men. We need a second American Revolution to reinstate the true, Madisonian principles of the framing. We need to be -- forgive me -- born again Madisonians.
Richard,
I am at a bit of a disadvantage here, not having grown up and taken American history courses as part of my formal education. So my knowledge is admittedly sketchy.
But from what I have read here and there, the Founding Fathers, while undoubtedly an elite that was a little fearful of too much democracy and sought to entrench property rights, were nowhere near as disconnected from ordinary people as the current oligarchy. Also while they were parochial (seeking to protect the interests of their own states) they were not nearly so petty (protecting their personal privileges).
Part of the reason was that they were meeting at a time when there was a serious existential threat to the nation, with real fears that if they did not form a better central governing authority, the whole thing might disintegrate. That no doubt helped to focus the mind.