Would the Founding Fathers support the GOP?

i don’t think they’d support either the GOP or the Democrats.

Both parties strongly favor big government, so I doubt they would like either party much.

I am not sure if they would approve of anything we are doing in DC right now, but I am dead certain that they would be opposed to the GOP as it currently is.

I agree with @Winters. Most of the Founders were more or less Enlightenment-influenced Classical Liberals. Both the modern Democrats and Republicans are far from classically liberal in their ideologies- as in both are extremely authoritarian, just in different ways.

I agree with you that the Founding Fathers were thinking men with an independent bent. I suspect they would call for a revolution.

Can somebody clear up the position of the founding fathers, wasn’t religion and state seperate, surely? well according to Hitchins anyways, the constitution was based upon the so called enlightenment principles.

They would be appalled at the infiltration of religion into the political field. They worked very hard to keep it out by enshrining the separation of church and state in our constitution.

To be clear, the GOP did not exist when our nation was founded. The first GOP president was Abraham Lincoln, a radical by the standards of the present-day GOP

@mammal, most of them were Deists. Some were actively opposed to religion. And still others were relatively active Christians. The first amendment says what it says for a reason, and that is something they all agreed upon.

“Would the Founding Fathers support the GOP?” Oh the irony.

The founding principles of our government are fundamentally conservative.

Should be flagged as a statement masquerading as a question.

@MeinTeil “The founding principles of our government are fundamentally conservative.”
I am gong to pretend you already know why that is stupid and move on.
Or are you going to concede that what we call “Conservative” these days has no relationship to the classical definition of “Conservative”?

Last I checked, real Conservatives did not cram Jesus down people’s throats, and they were in favor of less government control in all aspects of life, not just business. That meant no legislating beliefs or sexual orientations. They were also in favor of fiscal responsibility and not spending without having a way to pay the bills like the modern GOP does.

Uh, let’s see: Foreign Entanglements, the support of laws invasive to private lives and freedom of choice/pursuit of happiness, allowing a private banking cartel to control the money supply/create money which is constitutionally the pervue of Congress, a lobbying system weighted heavily on the side of corporations constituting blatant bribery, Freedom of Speech Zones, the No-Knock Law, Supreme Court rulings assigning individual constitutional rights to corporate entities since 1886, the Freakin’ Patriot Act, FISA and the warrantless spying on American Citizens, yada, yada, yada…

Both parties would be considered traitorous, the perps arrested in their congressional seats, given a mass trial and dragged out one by one into the Mall and hung.

@jerv, that’s what I was about to say…

I was going to ask @MeinTeil if he meant conservative as in laissez-faire about just about everything, or conservative as in “you better not be boning anyone who Jesus doesn’t want you to bone.” That’s the problem with words like this anyway… they have become so convoluted over time that they don’t really mean anything anymore, or definitions are completely arbitrary.

I am firmly convinced that the founders would be aghast at BOTH parties! I don’t think either party has either the best interests of the Nation at heart, nor the best interests of it’s people. Most of the Republicans have become so venal they have only their own interests at heart. Most of the Democrats have simply lost their minds and are on the verge of bankrupting the entire Country.

@MeinTeil perhaps morally conservative, but what’s wrong with that? After all, history shows what happens to governments, empires, countries, etc. when they become morally loose.

@CaptainHarley quite possibly the sanest utterance i have heard you utter.

@Winters, I dunno… Ben Franklin sure did bang a lot of French chicks…

@CaptainHarley, ding ding ding, we have a winner.

@mammal In recent times, I am surprised at how sane CH really is, and even more surprised that a Left-leaning New Englander can agree with a Texan.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard I was saying that the principles of the Government, Constitution, etc were founded on more or less conservative morals. Wasn’t talking bout what the founding fathers did behind closed doors.

@Winters, ah, gotcha.

I don’t understand why everyone is suddenly agreeing with @CaptainHarley. He’s merely stating opiniions and giving no facts. How are Republicans venal? How are Democrats bankrupting the country? The last time we had a budget suplus was under a Democratic administration, and that surplus was squandered by the subsequent Republican administration.

@Winters Define “morally loose”.
Some would argue that not executing homosexuals is too tolerant whereas others feel that there are no limits other than what we set for ourselves individually, and most people fall in between.
Is it morally loose to allow women to even sit in the front seat of a car? To eat bacon? To meditate on koans instead of pray to Jesus or Allah or the Great Green Arkleseizure?

I was under the impression that the First Amendment was our Founding Father’s way of saying that we had more latitude than people like Sarah Palin or Glen Beck (poster-children for today’s GOP) would allow.

I’m not sure the Founding Fathers would support much of anything either Party is doing these days.

@jerv What I am saying is when the government is overcome by greed and other such loose morals, eventually effecting its citizens giving rise to rebellion (hopefully). Like Rome, and the like.

@Winters Like Washington DC?

@jerv Captain Harley is an old fashioned decent conservative and a war veteran that believes in the core values, it would be churlish of me to argue the toss over certain issues, despite my radical political persuasion.

@mammal Too bad we don’t have more people like him on the ballots :(

@jerv it sure as hell looks like we’re getting there, but its been a fun ride while its lasted. Who knows? Maybe we’ll get one last spark of rationality and real ethics in the political world before all this goes tumbling down the drain. Oh well, starting from scratch doesn’t sound like too bad of an idea to me.

I have to ask @Winters what brand of rationality and whose ethics we’re supposed to be looking for before we “go tumbling down the drain”? That statement seems to be pessimistic in the extreme. On the contrary, I think what we’re seeing in the US today is the rise of citizens from many disparate political views who are truly inspired to work for the betterment of the country. There are impassioned progressives in the form of MoveOn.org, and there are the voiciferous members of the Tea Party movement. There is activity all over the scale that has never been seen before.

@hawaii_jake We live in interesting times. (For those who don’t know Chinese curses, that is not a good thing.)

@hawaii_jake well that’s your point of view, you are apparently an optimist and hope for the best, I am a pessimist and expect the worst.

Entitlement spending is not included in government budgets as it should be. If this were done, it would be clear that both parties have spent much more money than we can afford. Democrats and Republicans together have been bankrupting our country since the 1960’s. It’s inaccurate to say that one party has made any real effort to rein in spending because they have both squandered huge amounts of money.

The notion that individuals could govern themselves by electing their own representatives was an extraordinarily radical idea in the late 18th century in a world dominated by monarchies both large and small, constitutional and absolute. It was an extreme departure from the established forms of government of the time. It was unique.

It was born in the philosophical milieu of The Enlightenment. And there was great debate at the time about how much power was to be invested in the US Senate. Giving it powers above that of the US House of Representatives to approve presidential appointments and treaties with foreign powers was seen as creating a House of Lords.

There were the Federalists and the Anti-federalists who saw the rise of a strong central government in good and bad light. That fight has not been resolved. It is often through the purse strings that the federal government has to exercise its authority over other lower state and local governments. Examples are the withholding of funds for highway maintenance to states that didn’t change their speed limits to 55 mph in the 70s and the same for localities that refused to participate in the programs of Bush’s No Child Left Behind law.

What we are witnessing today is not new. The push and pull of radical and reactitonary ideas has existed since the inception of the colonies. That’s a good thing. Civil discourse is the sign of a healthy electorate. When we open our ears and listen to opposing views, we are practicing the greatest form of involvment there is. Airing those ideas in a public forum that is free was another of the great achievements of our constitution. Freedom of speech is alive and well in the US.

Voltaire once wrote something to the effect of “I may disagree with what you are saying, but I’m willing to die for your right to say it.” I do not see that changing in today’s America. On the contrary, I see it as robustly existing.

Having said all that, I still want to know whose morals and whose ethics we’re supposed to be emulating?

The current GOP, which has moved very far to the right, would be heavily at odds with the political philosophy of most of the Founding Fathers. While GOP spin artists are busy rewriting the history of the US to make the Founding Fathers a bunch or Christian zealots intent on setting up a Christian theocracy, the fact is that most of the Founding Fathers were diests and they were among the most liberal men of their day. While most of the world was snug in the belief in the divine rights of kings and empire building, America’s Founders struck out to establish the rule of alw and freedom for all. They were the leaders of the age of enlightenment and as far from the know-nothing disdain of “elites” and “university socialists” as the light of day is from a moonless night..

@ETpro The GOP may have appeared to move to the right recently because of the staggeringly sudden shift leftwards by Democrats recently especially since Obama’s politboro took power.

In fact the opposite is true. the GOP continues to sadlly slip to the left. This is why they’ve lost their electability and a new, properly conservative party is on the rise.

@ETpro Right. Both parties would hang, but I would hang the GOP first.

@MeinTeil More revisionism from the GOP. The new right has for some time now been holding a massive purge, getting rid of any voices of sanity and moderation under the banner of ridding the party of RINOs.

The Democratic party has not lurched anywhere but to the center. It’s far more of a corporatist tool today than when it gave us Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, the FDIC and Medicare. Try a better fabrication.

The founding fathers would “stand on their head and stack greased BB’s with boxing gloves,” if they were alive today. They would probably say, “I was happier in the grave!” Bye!

They would probably be horrified by the state of the union without any partisan explanation.

Is it just me or do we place these men (and men they were, not demigods) on too high of a set of pedastals. Are we to keep coming back to this question in centuries hence to judge the state of the nation and have that take precedence over what we, ourselves think of it?

Our founding fathers were liberal, reactionary, fought international corporations, believed that public education is the bedrock of Democracy, founded free universities, were Deists, not Christian as understood today, and some of them tried to abolish slavery.and believed that the people, not the aristocracy should run the country. They would be appalled by the GOP and disappointed in the Democrats.

@Ron_C

Great answer! I a-GREE mah bruth-AH! [ High Fives ] : D

Fist-bump to @Ron_C !

@Ron_C A simplification, no? I mean, the Founding Fathers were highly suspicious of democracy. They limited the franchise to wealthy white men, made half of the legislature unelected (the Senate) and even considered creating a monarchy rather than a republic. They undoubtedly believed that society should be run by elites. What made them radical was the fact that their definition of elite was far wider than anybody elses at the time.

A little revolution, now and then, is a good thing, don’t you think? : D

@Mephistopheles, I’m suspicious of direct democracy too. I don’t want 51% of people to eat the other 49% just because they won a vote.

LMAO!

@CaptainHarley A little revolution, now and then, is a good thing, don’t you think? Thomas Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”. Those words are being twisted by right wing toxic talkers now to suggest that the minority who can’t prevail at the ballot box are justified in shooting their way into control. Tyrants aren’t people who are duly elected, serve their appointed term, then step aside. Those who seek to impose their own ideology with the barrel of a gun are the true tyrants.

@ETpro

Um… aren’t you overstating your case just a BIT??

@CaptainHarley I take it very seriously when people at political rallies or with large radio or televison audiences start advocating an atmosphere of hate and even suggest shooting their way into power, secession from the union, .and Nullification.

Sharon Angle told Nevadans that “we need to look at those 2nd Amendment remedies…” and went on to say it was time to Take Harry Reid out.

Glenn Beck said If violence breaks out from the right, it will have been intentionally provoked by Obama He says this on TV with histrionics, demagoguery and hate mongering designed to inflame the passions of the unstable in his audience.

Sarah Palin, a well known gun enthusiast, posted a map on her websites with cross hair targets denoting the Democrats who should be “Taken out” because they voted for Healthcare reform.

Right-wing talk radio is as toxic as talk can get without risking jail. Perhaps most direct was Watergate felon, G. Gordon Liddy, who counseled his audience , “The first thing you do is, no matter what law they pass, do not—repeat, not—register any of your firearms.” A felon counseling his listeners to commit felonies. Prior to that advice to break the law, he had specified what to do if the authorities do come to take illegal arms. “Well, if the Bureau fo Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you, and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot. They’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests.”

I could go on and on listing the references to the vile hate mongering from Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Neil Boortz to say nothing of the thousands that aren’t nationally syndicated but fill the air daily with hate speech in their local market.

So your call. Am I overstating my case, or are they?

@CaptainHarley To put in another way, if we assume that only one in a million people are batshit crazy enough to take that sort of stuff seriously and actually act on that insanity, we are still talking a few hundred people in the US alone. And given what I’ve seen in my years on this planet, I would say that the rate of Batshit Insanity is at least a couple of orders of magnitude more prevalent than that, so that means that there are at least thousands of potential troublemakers.

To my mind, those wingnuts are as much of a danger on domestic soil as terrorists are, even if that danger is mere potential, so either they are dangerous, or all of the increased security we’ve had since 9/11 is bullshit. I think that we agree that the latter is false, therefore the former is true by default.

Since I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Neil Boortz, or any of the others, I don’t have enough information about them to make a judgment. I’ll just bow out of this portion of the discussion. However, I will say this… all those people are entitled to their freedom of speech, so long as they do not actively promote sedition or the violent overthrow of the government. Anyone who takes up arms against the American government had best be prepared to face the consequences.

@CaptainHarley and @jerv thanks for your support.

@Mephistopheles remember, compared to their European and Asian contemporaries, the American revolutionaries were extremely progressive and liberal. Further, the fight wasn’t so much against the British government as it was against the monopoly granted to the world’s largest international corporation, the British East India Company, in which, George the Third had a major interest.

You could look at the revolution as one group of elites revolting against the ruling elites. Of course you would have to ignore the involvement of Thomas Paine or groups like the Sons of Liberty that were anything but aristocracy.

Indeed, some of the revolutionaries tried to declare George Washington King of the Americas. Of course he rejected the title and retired. Our founding fathers placed more emphasis on education than breeding. That is why they insisted that the population be educated and that a well educated Senate act as a damper to the excesses of the majority. That is why we have a Representative democracy. The laws were written to prevent any government body or group from grabbing power. That is what the balance of power is all about.

The fact that even after the adoption of our constitution, some people still owned slaves, some thought that religion should be taught in schools, that some classes deserved more rights than others, and that women couldn’t vote shows that there have been conservatives from the beginning. The only danger lies when one group gains permanent power over the other. That is why there is always such a fight over supreme court nominations. Since those appointments are for life, conservatives or progressives gain and hold more power because they would be able to co opt more than one branch of government.

We could argue who is more harmful but would never agree.

@CaptainHarley Agreed; even assholes have the right to free speech and to peaceably assemble. If it were otherwise, then what did you and I sign up for to protect?
My only issue is that I am unsure about how long they will remain peaceable.

@Ron_C Both sides have lunatics, but the ones on the right seem to be better armed.

@jerv God and guns somehow seem to go together for Christianity and Islam. I wonder why that is?

@Ron_C Because we have advanced beyond swords and longbows :P

I can’t speak for Islam, but as far as Christianity goes, we are instructed to “strive to be at peace with all men whenever possible.”

@CaptainHarley No offense, but I don’t think you can really speak to this. See, you are not a lunatic extremist who misquotes scripture to conform to your own agenda/bias.