Re: Stupid conservatives and their "founders fetish"

On 9/22/20 2:42 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Our Founding Fathers fetish is strangling America: The disastrous
> consequences of our childish hero-worship
> https://www.salon.com/2015/06/03/leave_the_founding_fathers_alone_why_we_need_to_stop_looking_to_the_late_1700s_for_answers/
> 
> 
> What's with conservatives' fetish for the Founding Fathers?
> https://www.salon.com/2010/05/11/constitution_fetish/
> 
> The Dangerous Founders Fetish
> 
> "The automatic, programmed, resort to citing 'The Founding Fathers' as
> if the words, real and invented, were infallible writ, is ubiquitous in
> political culture these days. In just about every case the citation of
> 'The Founders' is supposed to be taken as the authoritative settler of
> arguments, sort of like the Guinness Book of World Records was intended
> to be in an only slightly different context."
> http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2010/08/dangerous-founders-fetish-anthony.html
> 
> 
> Founding Father Fetishism And Constitutional Culture War
> https://prospect.org/article/founding-father-fetishism-constitutional-culture-war./
> 
> 
> 
> So, it is obvious — *beyond* obvious — that "the founders" got a lot
> wrong.  Slavery and the electoral college, forever intertwined, are only
> two examples.  Another big foul-up is that although they decried
> political parties and "factions," the structure they created all but
> *guaranteed* that parties would emerge.  But the most important thing
> they got wrong was that the Constitution did *not* provide for "limited
> government," and that was true from the very beginning.  One of the
> chief architects of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton, never intended
> it to impose limited government; quite the opposite.
> 
> Founders fetishists like Hartung, Gak and not-jane like to bray about
> federalism and "states' rights" and "limited government."  Hamilton and
> John Adams set about *immediately* to crush those.  It's a great irony
> that their party was called the "Federalists," because in reality they
> were thoroughly *anti*-federalist.  And naturally, the faction
> historically mislabeled the "Anti-Federalists" were the true federalists.
> 
> One of the worst aspects of founders fetishism, particularly as
> practiced by Hartung, Gak and not-jane, is they always fall into the
> same error of thinking several wrong and bad thoughts:
> 
> 1.  The founders were unanimous (they were not)
> 2.  The founders exceptionally wise men, the likes of whose intellects
>     have never been seen since (they were not)
> 3.  The founders were infallible (they were not)
> 4.  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are sacred (they are not)
> 
> All of the fetishists beliefs are wrong, but by insisting they are
> right, even while refusing to acknowledge that the Constitution never
> was the blueprint for "limited government" they insist it was and is,
> they are strangling us.
> 
> Anthony McCarthy, the author of one of the pieces linked above, wrote it
> very well:
> 
>    Questioning the wisdom of worshiping the “founders” will be met, mostly,
>    with confused bewilderment, of the kind that you meet whenever you
>    question a socially received bit of common consensus. If you press the
>    point, you will eventually get an angry reaction, the emotion that is
>    the most handy replacement for a rational argument.
> 
>    Why a group of white, male, aristocrats of the late 18th century is
>    supposed to govern our lives, in an entirely different world, more than
>    two centuries later, is a question that isn’t raised nearly as often as
>    it should be. Why should they govern us today? After all, the “founders”
>    themselves, were revolutionaries, overturning established governments,
>    cutting ties to previous foundations of government and law – as deemed
>    desirable by themselves. Why that morality of that break with the past
>    isn’t seen by today’s would-be Federalists as more potently instructive
>    than the alleged teachings of those revolutionaries, is an issue that
>    should be pressed. They changed things through violence, a war in which
>    many people died, people were attacked and dispossessed.
> 
> In other words, the American founders themselves didn't see themselves
> as bound by any prior "best and brightest" founders, so why should we?

And yet Democrats Liberals and Progressives/Socialists, all quote Karl
Marx and Vladimir Lenin and then there's all the Mao and Fidel Castro
and Hugo Chavez followers and Che Guevara shirt wearing flag waving
Marxists and Communists who ARE like MARXIST PROGRAMMED DRONES.

It seems you neglected to mention them.... why is that?


The founder never claimed they created a perfect Union/Government and no
it doesn't have to stay the way they created and they even allowed for
change, but they allowed for that change to come from the Constitution
being amended legally and properly.  So why do democrats try to use
their Pen and their phone to bypass the actual process that was designed
for NOT LIVING BY THE FOUNDERS SYSTEM that they built for us.

The only reason I can see is that Democrats and Marxists can't get what
they want if they stick to the Constitution and read as the founders
wrote it, so the Democrats can't legally get what they want so they
intend to try to force their ideas on the people.

Suddenly following the founders as they created the Union doesn't seem
so far out there does it?  It sound more like the Democrats are trying
to undermine the Constitution to ignore the laws so they can force their
Marxism on FREE PEOPLE and the DEMOCRATS are frustrated at the FACT THAT
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON'T WANT ANY OF IT, so Democrats are bringing in
immigrant voters that will vote for their Marxism and don't know the
Constitution and it's process.








-- 
That's Karma


                     *Mama'says*
233 - The Republican thinks of politics as a way to preserve order,
justice, and freedom. The Liberals, on the contrary, thinks of politics
as a revolutionary instrument for engineering society and transforming
human thinking.

*In his march toward their Utopia, the Liberal ideologue is merciless*