These proceedings were the proper place for men of substance, men of mature judgement who understood that the the inviolate right of Property was the axis of civilization. Egalitarianism is all very well as an inspirtation to the people in the hour of crisis, but who needs a rabble rouser when its time for the rabble to be polite, industrious, and compliant?
IIRC, the argument was that the Constitution, designed for the first big republic in human history, would prevent threat that by providing representation in Congress to such a wide range of factions and interests that no one faction could hope to win a dominant position. Which is not the same thing as putting government in the hands of an elite of career politicians. (Of course, no modern republic has been able to function without an elite of career politicians.)
I’m sure he was also foursquare in favor of good weather and a healthy economy.
Problem for the Repubs is, whoever’s running will either have to repudiate Bush – hardly a move likely to endear him or her to the Pubbie base – or embrace Bush – hardly a move likely to endear him or her to the 65 percent or so of Americans who think Bush stinks on ice. It’s heads I lose, tails you win for any Pubbie candidate so long as most Americans despise Bush and a significant portion of the Pubbie base continues to worship him.
I believe all of them were. “Election” isn’t synonymous with “a public election of the entire populace of the state.” In all the historical writings I’ve read about the Philadelphia Convention/Constitutional Convention the manner in which States appointed delegates is always referred to as “elected so and so” or “selected so and so”, both seem correct to me. In general they were elected by the state legislatures.
The Constitution, likewise, refers to the “election of Senators” even when, at the time, Senators were chosen by State Legislatures, it was still viewed as an election, just with a very small group of voters.
You are referring of course, to the more moderate American revolutionaries.
But how much of the Pubbie base does continue to worship him?
Including Hamilton – his proposal was for a centralized, unitary state where the president and senators would hold office for life “or on good behavior” and the national (not federal) government would have the power to redraw states’/provinces’ boundaries and appoint their governors.
Bit off target. Partly true, though–I should note that yes, the dispersion of factions across a large Republic was party of his plan, but not entirely it.
Madison’s argument was, factions are inevitable because men have a tendency to be biased in their own favor–and of course men have a tendency to have different opinions. The creditor is going to have a different view on what the laws regulating debts ought to be versus the debtor.
Madison’s belief was, since the United States was to be a large Republic, with a large electorate, only the cream of the crop would be getting elected. That, only men of established virtue, character, and ability could win election because they would be under the scrutiny of many (even with the restricted electorate as it was in the 1780s and 1790s, it was still orders of magnitude bigger than the electorate of most other pure republics in human history, like those of Italy and the prominent Roman Republic.)
What I said was essentially true. Madison, I don’t think, viewed it as “you want to have a cadre of elites to rule.” At least not phrased that way, but more consistent with what I said originally, that the idea was, you have established, experienced politicians who rule, because they are of greater character than the public at large.
How it all ties together, is Madison’s argument was these men of greater moral character would not become parts of factions, because they would be able to work towards the common good (something the masses would not have been able to do.)
One of Madison’s “bullet points” at the end of the Federalist 10 is:
(Speaking as to the advantages of a large republic over a small republic.)
Do you really think that was so outlandish? You do realize this was 1789, when most countries of Europe were ruled by absolute monarchs who didn’t exactly have term limits. And even in countries where the monarchs were not absolute, the U.K. for example, George III still wielded considerable power and while he had constraints on his power he had a significant hand in government and in choosing Prime Ministers (sometimes being forced to choose ones he didn’t like personally, but in general he was a powerful figure–and the last King to have any real power in the U.K.)
True enough, yes, they were all seen to be radicals by the world at large, but within that group some were much more radical than the others.
What an optimist. 
Not at all. In fact, in most respects I admire Hamilton’s vision for America’s future as against Jefferson’s. But not WRT his elitism.
Check your own OP, BG. 35 percent of Americans still approve of the way Bush is running the country (OK, may not be an EXACT semantic match for “worship” but considering the amount of stuff you have to ignore to say you approve of the way Bush is doing things, it’s not far from it).
A couple of points that I think I was trying to make in a scrambled way:
One was the simple, probably too factual to be debatable, point that using polls showing mediocre approval/disapproval ratings of “Congress” to claim that people don’t like what Pelosi, Reid, and the Dems are doing is completely off base. Congressional Dems (including specific Congressional Dems like Pelosi and Reid) poll substantially better than does Congress proper.
The other, I think, is a response to the kind concerns of some of our board’s conservatives, both before and after the midterms, that the Dems needed to move to the center to gain and hold popular support - that if they persisted in taking strong stands, they’d take the party off a cliff.
I’m not sure how much debate there is left there at this point, but this did seem to be the forum to say, “I think this one’s settled.” Taking strong stands is good. I wouldn’t go quite as far as Chris Bowers does when he says, “Right Now, America Is The Democratic Base,” but I think he’s right in saying that a solid majority of Americans strongly support the Democratic positions on key issues.
Most Americans want us to get out of Iraq, even if it means we fail to restore civil order there. (Q. 14 of the WaPo/ABC poll.) Most Americans will support the Dems if they work to bring about universal health care. Most Americans want the U.S. to address global warming in a serious manner. Most Americans want a higher minimum wage. Most Americans want Congress to investigate the more serious malfeasances of the Bush Administration. And so forth.
IOW, by fighting for the things they believe in, and NOT mushily compromising, the Dems can bring the majority of Americans into their camp, and turn Bowers’ words into truth.
Yeah, I set myself up for that one, didn’t I? If this wasn’t the most muddled OP I’ve ever written, it was pretty close. Hopefully my last post clarified my intentions a bit.
We’ve got a serious buncha night owls here. I woke up at 4:30am Eastern time, and expected nothing but maybe six or eight “WTF are you trying to say, RTF?” posts. There were a few of those, of course, but in addition, I find that my OP has become the springboard for a very interesting back-and-forth about the Constitutional Convention. I love this place. 
Nothing wrong with Edmund Burke. But in a speech to the Bristol electors, he said: