When the United States was being formed, a group of men came together to iron out the framework and laws that would be included in this new union. Reading the documents and letters from these people of the time show that they were far from monolithic in desires. There were those that wanted a much stronger federal government, and those who wished for greater state autonomy. From political structure to economics to gun laws, the people coming together to draft our constitution and add the first ten changes to it had greatly differing ideas.
If they had all stood on principle, we would not have a union today. They had differences of opinion that could be considered intractable, there were fundamental differences of perspective that could never be reconciled. The only thing they agreed on was that being divided was a sure way to fail as a new nation. Parties that refused to negotiate and compromise in good faith were simply marginalized, and did not get to have much impact in the final outcome.
They came to the constitutional conventions with principles and desires for how they felt the nation should be shaped, and they left with a compromise. Everyone got something that they wanted, and it was made sure that no one got everything that they wanted. In the end, no party was happy with the result. For a couple of years, more negotiations and compromises were made, resulting in the Bill of Rights. Every generation or so, a couple of new amendments make their way in, as a result of more negotiation and compromise.
Argument and debate are part of the process. The debate is not over yet, and there are very legitimate perspective on all sides of most issues. As long as there is a central government applying to to a diversity of cultures and heritages, the debate will continue. When the debate stops is when democracy ends.
Given that our country was founded on the idea of compromise and accommodation to create a better whole, how do those who claim to exemplify the founding fathers ethically justify obstructionism? If a minority political faction cannot get everything it demands, why can it deny compromise on behalf of the greater whole, rather than simply marginalizing itself until it can negotiate in good faith again?
The short answer is that “those who claim to exemplify the founding fathers” do so as narrowly, selectively and erratically as do those who claim to be implementing Jesus’ injunctions.
The same way yet others don’t want their tax dollars going to help the poor but claim they want a nation based on Christian values!
I think what you’re really hearing is the screeching of a dying position, death throws, as it were. At some level those hoping to deport illegals, put prayer back in school, homosexuals back in closets, must know they cannot turn back time, in my opinion.
I think they are pulling out all the stops, resorting to changing electoral districts and inciting birthers wherever possible, the slanderous racism, as it’s all a Hail Mary pass from a dying entity that can see the writing on the wall. I mean the amount of stupid alone should be the tip off, that they are at the, ‘shooting their load, using every tactic, never give up, go down swinging’ part of the game, from all appearances anyway.
Exactly. When it’s obvious they can’t get everything they want, they ought to play a rational optimax game and try to get as much of what they want as they can bargain for.
Most of the founders and framers of the Constitution wanted an end to slavery. They couldn’t get it. They managed to limit slave states from counting more than 3/5 of their slaves when apportioning Representatives, which helped limit the power of the slave states. Neither side got what they really wanted, but each side got something by giving something.
Today’s GOP could, in fact, get much, if they acted in their own best interests. The moderate Republicans know this, but are hampered by their extremist colleagues. So they end up getting nothing, and harming us all.
Let’s remember that the issue of slavery was argued, compromised over and finessed continually but less than 80 years later all the compromises collapsed and the issue finally had to be settled via civil war.
The FF compromised when they could. It took the BOR get the Constitution approved. Patrick Henry was so against the new Constitution that he refused to serve at the Federal level after it was passed.
Some of these guys HATED each other (e.g Jefferson and Adams). They also did not have a government that controlled nearly as much as we have today. I am sure that if they were fighting over control in this day and age, many of them would be just as out there as tea partiers and Pelosi / Boxer types (or whatever we would call the extreme’s of the Democratic party).
The short answer is that whatever the Founding Fathers intended, they created a political system with separate power centers and numerous choke points that makes legislation difficult to pass. They could have created a much more unitary parliamentary system but chose not to.
The shorter answer is that dissent is the highest form of patriotism – to the dissenters.
The premise here is mistaken. The compromisers and accommodators had been expelled to places like New Brunswick. The remaining crowd was dominated by paranoid revolutionaries who thought that George III was out to enslave them. The separation of powers was an expression of radical distrust rather than any spirit of compromise.
The Tea Party faction looks at a tax from Washington the way the colonials looked at one from London. That’s the problem.
I think you’re missing an important piece of the puzzle. The Framers worked in a closed room, and weren’t running for reëlection. Thus they could compromise without having to imagine their votes and statements being used against them in a primary challenge, as proof that they weren’t ideologically pure.
The puzzle is why the US has done so well for so long despite having such a poor constitution. See:
I can’t find statistics, but I think more than half can be fairly described as officeholders seeking re-election (usually by their state legislature). Some had a direct financial interest because the United States Congress was likely to pay better than the Confederation Congress, depending on what state you were from.*
As for the closed room: The effect of allowing journalists into the Constitutional Convention is impossible to predict, but I’m for openness in government. If it meant another decade under the Articles of Confederation, at this remove, is that really a concern?
Note that the weak confederation president was a creature of congress, making the kind of showdown was are experiencing this month impossible.
The initial US Congress pay was $1,500 per year. The Confederation Congress, which many members of the constitutional convention were part of, had pay that varied by state. Does anyone know for sure if I am right in thinking that the states mostly paid less?
