Earlier threads:
FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution
5 Oct 1787, Centinel #1
6 Oct 1787, James Wilson’s Speech at the State House
8 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #1
9 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #2
18 Oct 1787, Brutus #1
22 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #1
27 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #2
27 Oct 1787, Federalist #1
31 Oct 1787, Federalist #2
3 Nov 1787, Federalist #3
Bttt for the others
As a Mason, I can testify that the most common portrait I’ve seen in Masonic buildings is Washington and not Warren.
Now on to the concept of annual elections. The idea is noble. The people will reject unresponsive politicians almost immediately. It sounds like ideal solution as long as one side is presented. The truth is that all the ivory tower eggheads in Washington won elections. Mostly, they’ve won several elections. Their records are known, their ideas are known, and they are re-elected. So when we rant about the fools in government, it’s really a fallacious argument. They’re in government because people put them there, and they often do pretty much what was expected of them. Are we surprised when Nancy Pelosi votes for a liberal law?
We shouldn’t be surprised. The people of San Fancisco put her there because of what she promised to do, and now she’s doing it. Her electorate loves her. She promises to take money from boogeymen and give it to nice people. Her electorate may be stupid, but they also can vote. Now imagine that she had to run for office every year. Who here thinks that this would make her less liberal?
She would be worse. She’d have to throw things out to the majority of the district constantly. It’s obvious what they want, and what kind of candidate they will support. If someone came along next year, propped up some imaginary crisis, and promised to throw more money at it than Pelosi, she would lose. An even worse liberal would take her place. How do you beat someone who throws money at the voters? Promise to throw more money at them. Promise to do more populist things, and if those things ignore the applicable laws, promise to find the means to do it anyway.
This is what we elect in this country, a gang of babbling dopes that believe their own press releases. The idea that an honest press might somehow combat this trend is laughable. DeWitt complained about media bias and the country didn’t even exist yet. Yet it must not have been so bad since his own letters were published. Small news sources were easy to create and as small institutions, they were better able to respond to change.
What existed in 1787 disappeared for a long time in this country. It’s only returning now. The internet is an open forum for ideas. The effect of this website in the 2004 election is dramatic proof of that. A small town conversation can reach the national interest. Now we shall see for how long foolish ideas can succeed.