Thank you for this article. There's so many issues to sort through here, and it really can't be done in a single post, or even a single series, but I'm glad you're starting the discussion.
I think you hit a lot of good points, but to me this line is the real crux of it all - "EVERY institution, movement, organization, etc. is eventually usurped by its worst element- people who will subvert the power of the institution for their own selfish purposes."
The Framers of the Constitution understood that their government wouldn't last forever. They knew human nature was too deeply flawed even to consider such a prospect. It hurts me to think about how they struggled, hoping against all reason and experience, to form a government which might preserve freedom indefinitely, while knowing from their extensive knowledge of history that such thing never had, and never could, exist.
Their ambivalence was truly remarkable, and I think Gouverneur Morris probably put it best when he wrote, "Surrounded by difficulties, we did the best we could; leaving it with those who should come after us to take counsel from experience, and exercise prudently the power of amendment, which we had provided."
There is also a great line from Washington's notes for his 1st Inaugural Address which I think is both very pertinent and extremely painful. Unfortunately, it was cut from the final product, but here it is -
"Should, hereafter, those who are intrusted with the management of this government, incited by the lust of power & prompted by the supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction & sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable—and if I may so express myself, that no wall of words—that no mound of parchmt can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other."
Our greatest problem ISN'T our government - it's ourselves. As Madison so deftly put it, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
Other than Madison (whose writings most people can't decipher) and Jefferson, I really liked the writings of Henry Laurens (SC) who hammered home again and again the necessity of God for the nation to survive. He like the others (even perhaps more so) understood that democracy is not something you can make or give to someone... it has to be earned. Democracy is more a verb than a noun- it's what you do when you have liberty (the noun).
Thanks for the great remark. I had originally thought about 2 short articles... I don't think so. Many years ago I wrote (almost) a book , about 360 pages- some of which survived on floppy- devising a new model for political analysis. Liberal and Conservative are so limited and people change as do the definitions of the words over time. I looked for some immutable characteristics that transcend transient labels and get to the root of human nature (in a political sense) and came up with 4 designations. So after the Bill of Rights post- I think I'll do one on that and introduce my new concept (newly named at least) The Asshole Quotient!
You have hijacked my attempt to write a series of stories with similar content. But you can't really call it stealing when the item you claim stolen is an upgrade in just about every idea possible by a factor of ten times (sarcasm-but maybe also true). My thoughts were a much more compacted version of many similar sentiments. You should go through those writings, I bet it is a heck of a read. Maybe you could co-write with Mark Levin on a book? Your selling point on the title alone he could not resist.
Do you still have a copy of your book draft? I would love to read it! Or even just the parts of it that remain.
You mention 4 political labels; I'll be interested to see what they are. Jefferson came up with just 2 primary ones, and I always thought they fit the bill pretty nicely.
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties. 1. those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2dly those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them cherish and consider them as the most honest & safe, altho’ not the most wise depository of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them therefore liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats or by whatever name you please; they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last appellation of artistocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." - Thomas Jefferson, August 10, 1824.
I break it down into leader/follower and positive/negative typologies. By positive/negative (the simplest characterizations I could come up with) People driven by either rational or irrational self-interest. In psychological terms, inner vs outer directed. I try to keep the characterizations simple because the explanations get kind of convoluted. I guess Jefferson's elite vs non-elite would suit the leader/follower except that elites are artificial- you can inherit elite status whereas by leaders I mean some innate leadership traits that make people want to follow... by personality, not fiat. I'll address factions (parties) when I write my piece on the Bill of Rights.
The stuff for the book I wrote over 20 years ago and it needs to be updated a bit- part of it was a critique of the Clinton presidency.