What woulf the founding fathers think of the USA today

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Archaeopteryx
Discuss

Omega Vision
"Is that the President's slave addressing congress right now, explaining that the President is running late?"

But seriously, the whole "what would the founding fathers think?" is a bullshit hypothetical that pundits and politicians use to try to lend ethos to their positions and to criticize policies and practices they disagree with.

We should understand that while the Founding Fathers had good ideas and made the country we live in today possible, their ideas are no longer practically relevant, and applying their political and economic and cultural principles to today's world would be disastrous.

jaden101
Probably 'why did we even bother getting independence from Britain for these bunch of ****ing morons?'

Omega Vision
You know the main reason they started the revolution was because of the Crown's Sugar taxes interfering with the American right to produce 64 oz sodas. uhuh

Oliver North
I honestly think they would know better than to ask people who lived before the automobile what the best way to interpret the constitution in the modern era would be.

Think about it, imagine being woken up 200 years in the future and being asked what the best choices to make were. Don't you think you might look for someone a little more qualified?

Nemesis X
Originally posted by jaden101
Probably 'why did we even bother getting independence from Britain for these bunch of ****ing morons?'

Symmetric Chaos
"This is HUGE! Guys look at this! HUGE! ****ing amazing!"

Dolos
Discombobulated.

Afraid.

Discorded.

focus4chumps
"holy shit i want beyonce...and a ferarri" -thomas jefferson

Omega Vision
What would Genghis Khan think of modern Mongolia? That's about as relevant a question.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Omega Vision
What would Genghis Khan think of modern Mongolia? That's about as relevant a question.

"This is TINY! Guys look at this! TINY! ****ing amazing!"

Dolos
Religiously torn asunder.

Psychologically disoriented, anxious to return to a world they understand.

This could be a legitimate episode in the Twilight Zone.

jaden101
If you were able to show them anything from modern America I'd show them Jersey Shore and Donald Trump and shout at them 'LOOK WHAT YOU DID. THIS IS YOUR FAULT.'

Lord Lucien
Show them the moon landing. Tell 'em Jesus did it during his second coming. Blow their little Deist minds.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Oliver North
Think about it, imagine being woken up 200 years in the future and being asked what the best choices to make were.

Well, that would be a lot different than someone from 200 years ago waking up today. Mostly due to the acceleration and proliferation of technology. Waking up in this day and age can be learned and rather quickly. Some dude even wrote a book about it. We as humans can still adapt. But I don't think in 200 years we'll be able to just "adapt" to it: we'll need to be modified to just function in the world 200 years from now assuming no sort of technological singularity occurs or this conversation is even relevant.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Don't you think you might look for someone a little more qualified?

Nope. Their political philosophies are still relevant and useful. They'd need to spend a year or two studying history and law, of course. But their insight will still be interesting.


The notion that the "founding fathers" have no place in this modern world is, for me at least, and old and tired argument. I even find it dumb/idiotic.* To me, it is an argument from "new hotness vs. old and busted." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Smart humans are smart humans no matter the decade: they didn't cease to be intelligent and educated humans, overnight.


I'm sure Ben Franklin would now how to use your Apple laptop better than you do after just a few short months.


*Many times I have heard and/or read that the old timers from 150-250 years ago are too out dated to be useful (and time and time again I read something from their time that seems more relevant today than ever). It is getting old to hear that argument. In fact, it is so frequently stated that I don't hardly hear or read "what would our founding fathers say regarding our current state?"


Originally posted by focus4chumps
"holy shit i want beyonce...and a ferarri" -thomas jefferson

You joke...but...

Tzeentch._
Thanks for clearing that up, Dadudemon.

Sheldon
The founding fathers gave us a Republic, if we can keep it. Meaning the representatives will make some choices for us that we abide by and will allow the free market to trade within reason.

What they might be baffled by is how people allow themselves to be persuaded by Madison Ave and Hollywood values much to the expense of their health and well being.

jinXed by JaNx
i dont think they could have ever imagined their efforts would have grown into something so grand. I'm sure they would be proud and incredibly overwhelmed. In no way do i think they would be disappointed or concerned with the current state of the country. Yeah, we may not use our rights in this country and many citizens probably don't even know what their rights are and yes, politicians break and out right disregard those rights all the time but they are still there to be used. Those rights can still be exercised at any time.

Some of the simple things that the founding fathers or citizens of that time wanted to change would be nearly impossible or require war. Today an average citizen can change or pass a law by using the political system.

dadudemon
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
i dont think they could have ever imagined their efforts would have grown into something so grand. I'm sure they would be proud and incredibly overwhelmed. In no way do i think they would be disappointed or concerned with the current state of the country. Yeah, we may not use our rights in this country and many citizens probably don't even know what their rights are and yes, politicians break and out right disregard those rights all the time but they are still there to be used. Those rights can still be exercised at any time.

Some of the simple things that the founding fathers or citizens of that time wanted to change would be nearly impossible or require war. Today an average citizen can change or pass a law by using the political system. +

I think, once they got caught up on history and technology, they would be appalled at the Patriot Act and things similar to that.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
Smart humans are smart humans no matter the decade: they didn't cease to be intelligent and educated humans, overnight.

They very much ceased the be educated humans about 200 years ago.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They very much ceased the be educated humans about 200 years ago.

So why do we still study the political sciences which includes many ideas from 200+ years ago?


In fact...in all my poli-sci classes, the majority of concepts were directly from or derivative of 200+ year old ideas. Granted, some came from just 100+ years ago.




I'd say you'd be really spot on if we shifted this to economics.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
So why do we still study the political sciences which includes many ideas from 200+ years ago?

Because we fetishize the past and because it is useful to see the progression of thought that lead to various beliefs in order to understand them. Unless you think there has been no political thought in the last 200 years they're blatantly uneducated in politics.

They're also uneducated in mathematics, economics, medical science, agricultural science, social theory, military theory, and specific realplolitik that defines the interaction of the nation toward other nation and the states toward other states. They don't even know how many states there are.

I'm about as interested in the thoughts of the founders as I am in the thoughts of a Big Man from an aboriginal tribe. What they have to say is interesting but not automatically useful or relevant. They are from an utterly alien culture. Being intelligent doesn't cause their writings to be updated over time or help them to translate across culture.

Now if they were physically here in our world, a pure thought experiment with absolutely no relation to reading their writings, it would take them a decade to catch up. At that point they would probably have good insights into our world but no better than any other smart political analyst of high ranking military official would. They're not demi-gods, they're not even the greatest humans ever to live. They're just smart and successful.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because we fetishize the past and because it is useful to see the progression of thought that lead to various beliefs in order to understand them. Unless you think there has been no political thought in the last 200 years they're blatantly uneducated in politics.

No no, not quite. Lemme rephrase: "So why do we still study the political sciences, which are directly attributable and applicable to what we actually do and practice today in almost every single modern nation on the planet, which includes many ideas from 200+ years ago?"

In other words, it is an inexorable truth that no one can deny. The question I asked is not really answerable and the rhetoric is logically irrefutable (that won't stop people from trying to refute it, though, right?). The political philosophies of 200+ years ago directly shape almost every political facet of the modern world. It's just how it is. Unless, of course, a new political movement comes along and completely subsumes the current modern political systems, we are stuck with having to learn many political sciences from many many years ago to directly understand how our current system.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They're also uneducated in mathematics, economics, medical science, agricultural science, social theory, military theory, and specific realplolitik that defines the interaction of the nation toward other nation and the states toward other states. They don't even know how many states there are.

Wrong on all of those. Almost all of them were educated in all of those to some degree. It is the degree and modernity of those subjects that would be an issue. I chose economics because economics seems to have made the most radical changes since their time that now plays a role in what we do that would be completely alien to them (for only a few weeks...until they understood it). Now, we employ supercomputers in economics that help us model "things" that did not exist in their time. That would be so completely foreign to them that I think it would take the longest for them to understand (but not necessarily learn...for me, there is a difference).

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm about as interested in the thoughts of the founders as I am in the thoughts of a Big Man from an aboriginal tribe. What they have to say is interesting but not automatically useful or relevant. They are from an utterly alien culture.

You're obviously speaking for yourself; I'd like to point out that their culture is far from alien to me.

But I'd also like to say that you are educated enough that I could reasonably state, with a high level of certainty, that their culture is not alien to you, either. You're underestimating how much you know.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Being intelligent doesn't cause their writings to be updated over time or help them to translate across culture.

Yeah, the part about their being intelligent had little to do with that and everything to do with what I stated it had to do with:

"Their political philosophies are still relevant and useful." That statement is true mostly because we literally still use their political philosophies in a direct way.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Now if they were physically here in our world, a pure thought experiment with absolutely no relation to reading their writings, it would take them a decade to catch up.

No, what I said: just a year or two. big grin

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
At that point they would probably have good insights into our world but no better than any other smart political analyst of high ranking military official would. They're not demi-gods, they're not even the greatest humans ever to live. They're just smart and successful.

That's fair.

Omega Vision
It's possible that the Founders would never adjust to modern standards of racial and gender equality, nor to the fact that it's no longer feasible for a country like the United States to remain isolated from world affairs, or that states are no longer treated like semi-autonomous entities.

dadudemon

Oliver North
DDM: your poli-sci courses really focused on pre-enlightenment thought? were they mostly history-of-western-politics-type courses? I don't ask critically, I just remember from my own electives, poli-sci stuff tended to be more relevant to modern times (ie: politics of Quebec, Politics of the Canadian/American/French constitution in modern times, etc), but I'm not American, and I actually wouldn't be surprised if they biased toward the enlightenment. I suppose I'm just surprised you would have poli-sci courses that ignored everything from Marx to Foucault, Rand to both neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism... as those are the things my politics courses focused on...

EDIT: I'd also suggest the necessity of educating the founders in modern history, politics and society sort of illustrates why their opinions might not be relevant today. Sure, maybe they could have a relevant opinion, but after years of education they'd be no better than a smart undergrad.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
No no, not quite. Lemme rephrase: "So why do we still study the political sciences, which are directly attributable and applicable to what we actually do and practice today in almost every single modern nation on the planet, which includes many ideas from 200+ years ago?"

Because we fetishize the past and because political change is either slow or bloody.

Originally posted by dadudemon
the rhetoric is logically irrefutable

All rhetoric is logically irrefutable because it relies on rhetoric not logic, it doesn't care about being true.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The political philosophies of 200+ years ago directly shape almost every political facet of the modern world. It's just how it is. Unless, of course, a new political movement comes along and completely subsumes the current modern political systems, we are stuck with having to learn many political sciences from many many years ago to directly understand how our current system.

Sure, we use a political system that had its inception about 250 years ago. Unfortunately much of it it is a common law system that relies on judicial precedent and the rest is a mutable system of laws open or explicit revision of reinterpretation by the judiciary. American law and political theory is significantly different now than it was 250 years ago. For example: There have been 17 ratified amendments to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wrong on all of those.

"Mr. Washington how many states are there?"
"Thirteen, of course, I helped them win their freedom in the Civil War you know."
"WRONG!"

"Mr. Franklin how does WWII affect US relations toward Japan?"
"I'm sorry I . . ."
"WRONG!"

"Mr. Jefferson would you say that black people are childlike and nearly subhuman?"
"Yes, that's why we have to stop mistreating the poor souls."
"WRONG!"

"Mr. Adams does the Constitution say that states must provide equal protection under the law to all people."
"Nope, I've read all of it!"
"WRONG!"

Originally posted by dadudemon
Almost all of them were educated in all of those to some degree. It is the degree and modernity of those subjects that would be an issue.

Being 200 years out of date does make you pretty much completely uneducated on those topics. I'm not going to read Aristotle if I want to learn about mechanics.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're obviously speaking for yourself; I'd like to point out that their culture is far from alien to me.

You own slaves, have no internet or running water, travel by horse, expect to die before seventy, and are still coming to grips with the idea of not being a citizen of the British Empire? The America you live in is currently under threat from French imperial ambitions and angry native tribes? You have good reason to expect that your children will die in their first year and that your wife will die while giving birth? The pinnacle of military force projection in your world is 1000 ton ship with 100 cannons on it?

Our culture is ridiculously unlike theirs.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Their political philosophies are still relevant and useful." That statement is true mostly because we literally still use their political philosophies in a direct way.

The only reason we pretend their thoughts have special relevance is because we fight about interpretation of their official writings which laid the groundwork for our legal and political systems.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Some of the Founding Fathers were directly involved in anti-slavery movements and legislation following the formation of the US (or Articles of Confederation).

"A Pew poll early this week found that at least some Congressmen say they're not fans of slavery on philosophical grounds and on account of how it exploits an inferior race but will tolerate it for economic reasons."

Nah, that sounds weird. I think our views of race have more forward a lot.

Omega Vision

Bardock42
To be fair, we are still pretty ridiculously racist and sexist. Not quite as much as they were back then of course, progress, w000.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Omega Vision
You should note that there's a big difference between being an abolitionist and believing that all races are equal. In some historical cases, a huge difference. Racism could actually be a motive for abolitionism (if you really hate blacks you don't even want them in America as slaves). I think even the best among them would have "old timey" outlooks on blacks, and they'd say things like
"Barack Obama? Don't let the lips and nose fool you, he's a canny fellow."

Remember that they were aristocrats at heart with aristocratic upbringings, and while they embraced enlightenment philosophy and high-minded rhetoric they also had a great fear of people outside their own socio-economic and cultural spheres, and when Benjamin Franklin swore that he would not prevent a "Mosulman" from living in America it was considered a radical statement, and IIRC a lot of his colleagues thought he was making a hilarious joke.

These are the are the Founders are discussing: not the common man. So you'd get a mixture of extreme racists and people that strongly thought of them as equal and capable. Jefferson and Franklin were the latter. Jefferson liked the Ebony so much...he made the nasty. From what I read, the majority were opposed to slavery. In one of my classes, one of the reasons discussed for wanting to separate from the crown was the desire to end slavery.

And on your new point about "equality", I strongly disagree.

Read a crap ton of quotes which are rife with religious notions of equality under God (of all places: Christian Answers, lulz):

http://christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html

When they agreed to the "all men are created equal", they meant it. Sure, some of them dissented and they signed away for other reasons. But most were on board. That was actually one of the compromises they had to Jefferson's awkward handling of that topic.

My opinion is: the majority of the FFs would be pleased with how things are, today.

I'll give you that Jefferson thought the African slaves were so different from the European colonists that they should not live in the same area (partly because of the racism of those around him and partly for cultural reasons). That's obviously very racist by today's standards. Me thinks he would be very pleased to see how "black culture" mixed quite well in the US. big grin


Originally posted by Omega Vision
I shouldn't have said "isolationist", because you're right, that's too strong a word. They did engage in tariffs and attempted embargoes and tried to push their weight around on the world stage, but things like NATO and probably the UN would worry them. Until the Second World War America avoided any long term alliances with other countries, and it wasn't until the end of the 19th century that they started to actually project power overseas (I don't count the Monroe Doctrine because up to that point the British Empire had actually enforced it).


If you didn't mean isolationist, then there is another word for it. It is what Ron Paul calls himself when he is accused of being an isolationist. I cannot think of the term, at the moment...and I am google'd out, right now.


Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think they'd be disappointed in the comparative lack of state-pride in modern Americans.

I don't know, man. In some ways, I think that state pride has grown. It gets pretty heated in Okie-land when a discussion turns to a "Oklahoma vs. Texas" debate. Our laws this, our people, that, our schools are these.


Edit - I cannot believe I spelled most things correctly in that post. I do not have autocorrect as I am forced to use IE. sad

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
Jefferson liked the Ebony so much...he made the nasty. From what I read, the majority were opposed to slavery. In one of my classes, one of the reasons discussed for wanting to separate from the crown was the desire to end slavery.

They disliked slavery because it happened to fit poorly with the work of some enlightenment thinkers and they were afraid of eventual retaliation by slaves. Jefferson has a well known essay laying out why he believes blacks are inferior by nature.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They disliked slavery because it happened to fit poorly with the work of some enlightenment thinkers and they were afraid of eventual retaliation by slaves. Jefferson has a well known essay laying out why he believes blacks are inferior by nature.

He would have loved the 40s. smile

Symmetric Chaos
By the way, I'm taking your decision not to engage me in angry debate as a sign of victory.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
By the way, I'm taking your decision not to engage me in angry debate as a sign of victory.

Why? smile

You just restated something I pretty stated already.

Observe:




And that idea was followed up with another idea: Jefferson would get over it quite readily because he can clearly observe that his ideas on segregation are wrong. smile




So I see nothing to discuss. 313

Master Han
Originally posted by dadudemon
So why do we still study the political sciences which includes many ideas from 200+ years ago?


In fact...in all my poli-sci classes, the majority of concepts were directly from or derivative of 200+ year old ideas. Granted, some came from just 100+ years ago.




I'd say you'd be really spot on if we shifted this to economics.

By this logic, we should listen to Aristotle's teachings on science, because we still follow his teachings on logic. confused

That some ideas from centuries ago still survive today (albeit in this context, in the highly questionable field of political science) doesn't conceal the orders of magnitude greater quantity of ideas that don't survive to this day, many of which the founding fathers once held.

You know, while the founders were typically more progressive in terms of slavery, freedom and all that than most people of their day, they'd still be considered vastly backwards and racist by today's standards. They also held backwards views on women, poor people, homosexuality, etc.

They were great men for their time, and we owe them our respect and gratitude for what they did for us...but that doesn't mean we should give a damn what they thought. Some of their ideas and theories were correct and can be independently supported through logic independent of the founders' say-so.

Basically, if we need to judge the men by their times, what makes you think their ideas are any different? And why not rely more on accomplishments of modern great persons?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.