Why are conservatives always quoting the founding fathers?

[Mithrae]

I don't think there is anything wrong with quoting or studying the writings and views of the founders at all. However, I would suspect the reason why conservatives tend to quote the founders more often than liberals is that conservatives tend to revere the writings of the founders just like they revere scripture. Liberals in contrast are much more apt to question the views of anyone, whether its the founders or religious scriptures. I think it boils down more to personality traits than anything else.

This is a very good point, IMO. The comparison is particularly obvious in regards to the tendency of treating the founding fathers - like the biblical authors - as a single cohesive unit whose views were all similar, and coincidentally the same as those of the person professing to teach what they 'really' intended.

Even a cursory reading of some more readily-available comments suggests that Benjamin Franklin's views, for example, were almost socialist in nature:

Property: Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.​

Strangely, the folk who appeal to their Founding Fathers most frequently seem to overlook all the comments which don't fit their ideology.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Nonsense. Virtually every conservative can give an account why and where the founder's acquired their well-reasoned positions.

We quote the founder's to remind liberal's what America stands for, where and why the law and American principles are the way they are. Because, liberals like to twist the meanings of words. Because whenever a liberal says the constitution is "living and breathing," he is about to stab it in the lung. So, we remind liberals of "original intent." That the philosophical issues the founder's dealt with are the very same issues dictatorial liberal's try to impose upon us today. That the founder's already thought-through liberal nonsense and addressed each and every nonsensical notion.

Well frankly I would disagree with that. While I would agree that many of the positions of the founders in a broad sense are very well reasoned, human enlightenment and progress did not stop 200 years ago. The original intent for many of the founders were for women and minorities not to be able to vote and be treated as second class citizens. The original intent of many of the founders was one where it was perfectly acceptible to own and horsewhip slaves and break up their families as though they were not human and only property. The original intent of many of the founders was one where it was perfectly acceptable to commit wholesale genocide against Native Americans. The founders were smart men, but they were far from perfect. They created a framework for the nation, not an all encompassing ideology that must be fundamentally adhered to as though it were divinely dictated. Our modern world would be completely inconceivable to them. Never mind the internet, nuclear weapons, the space age, and all the technological and scientific advances that have literally transformed human society over the last 200 years, they would be absolutely mesmerized by the garbage disposal under your kitchen sink :lol::

If The Founding Fathers Were Alive Today, They

Nowadays, it seems like our country is more divided than ever. It’s tougher and tougher to find something all Americans can agree on, and amid all this acrimony and infighting, one can’t help but wonder if our nation’s best days are behind us. In times like these, it only makes sense that we turn to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, who, if they were alive today, would be too fascinated by a garbage disposal to do pretty much anything.

Confronted with the obstacles our country faces right now, could these enlightened thinkers, the very men who conceived this nation, turn their attention away from a garbage disposal for even 30 seconds? If forced to direct their vast collective intellect to our modern-day problems, could these men do anything at all but spend literally all day cramming whatever they could get their hands on into a machine that almost supernaturally grinds food scraps into pulp?

Washington. Jefferson. Madison. If these patriots were somehow transported to the America of 2014, I don’t doubt for a minute that we’d only hear from them when one of them accidentally burned out the garbage disposal motor with a pork chop bone.

 

[TeleKat]

The founders were smart men, but they were far from perfect. They created a framework for the nation, not an all encompassing ideology that must be fundamentally adhered to as though it were divinely dictated.

This ^^^^

 

[Fiddytree]

Nonsense. Virtually every conservative can give an account why and where the founder's acquired their well-reasoned positions.

If they would have that historical skill, they would probably show more restraint than to use the term "The Founders" as if they were all that terribly unified in purpose and rationale.

Now, if someone were to claim that "the Founders" were so uniform and unweilding to change as this, then that person would be a poor student of history.

 

[Mithrae]

Confronted with the obstacles our country faces right now, could these enlightened thinkers, the very men who conceived this nation, turn their attention away from a garbage disposal for even 30 seconds? If forced to direct their vast collective intellect to our modern-day problems, could these men do anything at all but spend literally all day cramming whatever they could get their hands on into a machine that almost supernaturally grinds food scraps into pulp?

Amusing :lol:

In my last week visiting Vancouver I've been watching The Roosevelts: An Intimate History on Seattle's KCTS (PBS). It's interesting to see, even in the days of Theodore Roosevelt, both how his Republican ideals were not necessarily the same as those of politicians a hundred years earlier, but also how parochial, even imperialist he seems in other respects. I'm looking forward to seeing whether FDR was really as nasty and evil as modern Republicans seem to insist.

 

[Respecthelect]

Never mind the internet, nuclear weapons, the space age, and all the technological and scientific advances that have literally transformed human society over the last 200 years, they would be absolutely mesmerized by the garbage disposal under your kitchen sink

Yes, modern liberals are so impressed by modern technology few understand, but can they derive philosophy? Do they understand the consequences of their hot-pockets liberalism? Have they seen communism, socialism or dictatorships up close? First-hand? I've seen the bones of millions dead from liberalism. Seen what killing the three-million smartest does to a country like Cambodia. I've seen what happens when countries move right and when countries move left. And yes, I stood upon the pile after 9/11, searching for the living, but finding only the dead.

Liberals think they are smart, because our world is filled with technology, yet they are clueless regarding the means that it got there. They think they can simply take from one and give to another without consequence. Their solution to a fleeing owner class, is to build a legal wall and shoot anyone trying to leave. Not one lesson of the enlightenment crosses their intellectual doorstep.

Liberalism kills. It's all fun and smart-asset games in your college bubble world, until a Castro or a Pol Pot takes you up on your liberal idiocy. Then it's not so fun anymore, because then the killing starts.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Amusing :lol:

In my last week visiting Vancouver I've been watching The Roosevelts: An Intimate History on Seattle's KCTS (PBS). It's interesting to see, even in the days of Theodore Roosevelt, both how his Republican ideals were not necessarily the same as those of politicians a hundred years earlier, but also how parochial, even imperialist he seems in other respects. I'm looking forward to seeing whether FDR was really as nasty and evil as modern Republicans seem to insist.

Teddy Roosevelt in my opinion more than any other president is the quintessential American. FDR, while not loved by most conservatives (even though Reagan liked him), is regarded by most historians along with Lincoln as one of our 2 greatest presidents. Thats a topic for another thread though.

 

[Fiddytree]

Amusing :lol:

In my last week visiting Vancouver I've been watching The Roosevelts: An Intimate History on Seattle's KCTS (PBS). It's interesting to see, even in the days of Theodore Roosevelt, both how his Republican ideals were not necessarily the same as those of politicians a hundred years earlier, but also how parochial, even imperialist he seems in other respects. I'm looking forward to seeing whether FDR was really as nasty and evil as modern Republicans seem to insist.

They weren't. There are, however, some (and I stress the qualifier here) consistencies with American foreign policy of the previous century. American foreign policy's strength was based on economic trade. Its empire, if you will, had long since been built on the back of its trade interests. The outright colonialist viewpoint started to take shape in the wake of manifest destiny, but was itself a fairly brief experiment.

The historiography of FDR is interesting. In the first decades after FDR, there was a tendency by liberal historians to take a bit too much of a celebratory perspective. Now, with the rise of Milton Friedman and backers of supply-side economics, a skepticism if not outright displeasure at the argued impacts of his efforts to remove the Depression. The institution of many of his longer lasting domestic programs is largely accepted, however.

 

[newpublius]

They created a framework for the nation, not an all encompassing ideology that must be fundamentally adhered to as though it were divinely dictated.

That's what a Constitution actually is (not divinely dictated of course), its the Constitution until lawfully amended. Your issues with their gross indecencies were actually changed BY AMENDMENT actually. If that isn't the system that you want you can have a system that changes based solely on statute, ie. like the UK of course (parliamentary supremacy). But that is NOT our system. With respect to slavery, the intent of the framers remains relevant, as long as we're talking about the framers of the XIII Amendment itself prohibiting slavery; once amended what the framers thought of slavery becomes instantly irrelevant. What the framers thought about the unamended portions of the Constitution is relevant as to what the Constitution itself ACTUALLY MEANS.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Yes, modern liberals are so impressed by modern technology few understand, but can they derive philosophy? Do they understand the consequences of their hot-pockets liberalism? Have they seen communism, socialism or dictatorships up close? First-hand? I've seen the bones of millions dead from liberalism. Seen what killing the three-million smartest does to a country like Cambodia. I've seen what happens when countries move right and when countries move left. And yes, I stood upon the pile after 9/11, searching for the living, but finding only the dead.

Liberals think they are smart, because our world is filled with technology, yet they are clueless regarding the means that it got there. They think they can simply take from one and give to another without consequence. Their solution to a fleeing owner class, is to build a legal wall and shoot anyone trying to leave. Not one lesson of the enlightenment crosses their intellectual doorstep.

Liberalism kills. It's all fun and smart-asset games in your college bubble world, until a Castro or a Pol Pot takes you up on your liberal idiocy. Then it's not so fun anymore, because then the killing starts.

What a load of hyperbolic crap. I work in IT, I know how technology gets here. In fact, the vast majority of people IT I have worked with over the years have been liberal, moderate, or in some cases libertarian. If you think there is any correlation between a generic Democrat in the United States an Pol Pot, frankly, you are insane. Canada is to the left of the United States in its governance (even when conservatives are in power up there), and oddly enough they have avoided killing fields, purges or gulags. Scandinavia is well to the left of the USA, and oddly enough they Stalinist regimes with food lines and rampant poverty. I would not want to pay half my income in taxes like the do in Sweden in exchange for a generous welfare system, but thats their choice and it hasn't lead to the murder of millions of intellectuals.

These are just silly comparisons you are making.

 

[Respecthelect]

Theodore Roosevelt, both how his Republican ideals were not necessarily the same as those of politicians a hundred years earlier, but also how parochial, even imperialist he seems in other respects.

I don't understand the objection to Teddy Roosevelt either. His philosophy seems entirely consistent with the founding fathers? The founders didn't face monopolists, but T.R.'s trustbusting seems entirely consistent with preventing the monopoly to commit a fraud against free-market participants? I simply don't understand the objection to T.R.?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

That's what a Constitution actually is (not divinely dictated of course), its the Constitution until lawfully amended. Your issues with their gross indecencies were actually changed BY AMENDMENT actually. If that isn't the system that you want you can have a system that changes based solely on statute, ie. like the UK of course (parliamentary supremacy). But that is NOT our system. With respect to slavery, the intent of the framers remains relevant, as long as we're talking about the framers of the XIII Amendment itself prohibiting slavery; once amended what the framers thought of slavery becomes instantly irrelevant. What the framers thought about the unamended portions of the Constitution is relevant as to what the Constitution itself ACTUALLY MEANS.

Much of the gross indecencies of the time were actually challenged and changed in the federal courts later. We have had relatively few amendments (thank God) due to the flexibility of the original constitution.

 

[Respecthelect]

These are just silly comparisons you are making.

You won't think it's silly when politically-correct open borders get us nuked. Leftists get people killed, it's what they do.

 

[newpublius]

Much of the gross indecencies of the time were actually challenged and changed in the federal courts later.

True, but those decisions only happened because the obvious implications of the XIV Amendment were ignored. Jim Crow wasn't a constitutional defect, it was a constitutional defect because courts, prior to changing things, first wrongfully ignored them actually. But if you were to discuss the implications of the liberty amendments, the 13, 14 and 15th amendments, you'd look to the original intent of Bingham and Howard in particular and of the Congressional debates that accompanies the passage of those amendment. If you do, you'd be hard pressed to find support for a Jim Crow system.

 

[Jerry]

All of the sudden conservatives are all historians. They are all quoting the founding fathers and screaming we are losing our freedom. Where was all this freedom loving crap when Reagan was pushing his fascist war on drugs, red states banning gay marriage and all the other moralistic BS the right has pushed over the years? No they are not for freedom at all. As for the founding fathers they where not moral at all. Many where heavy drinkers, slave owners who has sex with the female slaves, went to orgies and many where not that religious. They believed that only white, male landowners should vote and we had to change many of their backward laws over the years. So I ask you right wingers again. Why the history lesson all the sudden?

It's not all of a sudden.

Conservatism is maintaining a status quo, and that status quo is the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

 

[Stoney]

I don't see how this argument that the Constitution is out of date can be made by anyone who has read it with any kind of objectivity. Its a set of principles which limit the federal government in order to preserve liberty. It doesn't restrict liberals or conservatives from doing about anything they want to do as long as they do it at the state or local level. The point was to prevent the ability of totalitarian power at the federal level. Why would that not be something that we would all pursue, embrace?

The difference between the founders and current politicians is that the founders were interested in a contract for living together that would preserve liberty and provide the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Current politicians are mostly interested in getting and retaining power and the benefits of that power.

I see the current divide as a natural struggle resulting from a crumbling of the contract that our founders agreed to abide by. We are, both sides, saying that this contract means what we want it to mean and even ignoring what it means rather than discussing ways that we might change it. Without a contract that we can respect and adhere to I don't see us going to any good end.

 

[Captain America]

Well frankly I would disagree with that. While I would agree that many of the positions of the founders in a broad sense are very well reasoned, human enlightenment and progress did not stop 200 years ago. The original intent for many of the founders were for women and minorities not to be able to vote and be treated as second class citizens. The original intent of many of the founders was one where it was perfectly acceptible to own and horsewhip slaves and break up their families as though they were not human and only property. The original intent of many of the founders was one where it was perfectly acceptable to commit wholesale genocide against Native Americans. The founders were smart men, but they were far from perfect. They created a framework for the nation, not an all encompassing ideology that must be fundamentally adhered to as though it were divinely dictated. Our modern world would be completely inconceivable to them. Never mind the internet, nuclear weapons, the space age, and all the technological and scientific advances that have literally transformed human society over the last 200 years, they would be absolutely mesmerized by the garbage disposal under your kitchen sink :lol::

If The Founding Fathers Were Alive Today, They

Here! Here! Well spoken!

Some folks prefer to keep American society locked in and yoked to an almost ancient set of rules with no room for adaptation and progression of society. They are against the freedom of future generations to decide their own fate. Reminds me of the Taliban.

 

[Respecthelect]

Some folks prefer to keep American society locked in and yoked to an almost ancient set of rules with no room for adaptation and progression of society. They are against the freedom of future generations to decide their own fate. Reminds me of the Taliban.

Human nature doesn't change. America is still the only country in the world based on that human nature and you nubs want to change it? You don't even know what you have, much less grasp what you stand to lose.

 

[Captain America]

 

[matchlight]

human enlightenment and progress did not stop 200 years ago . . . They created a framework for the nation, not an all encompassing ideology that must be fundamentally adhered to as though it were divinely dictated. Our modern world would be completely inconceivable to them.

I've seen variations on that argument many times, and they ring hollow. They are just an expedient that ironically-named "liberals" who favor powerful central government use to justify avoiding the Constitution, which was deliberately designed to prevent that very thing. Our Constitution does not create the sort of socialist utopia that they dream of turning this country into, so they try to get around it.

It is exactly because the framers knew conditions would always change that they included the rules for amending the Constitution right in it, in Article V. The very fact they did that--which was something novel for constitutions--is evidence they did not mean for temporary majorities to "amend" our Constitution through the back door by giving its words whatever unreasonable interpretation suited their purposes.

 

[James D Hill]

It's not all of a sudden.

Conservatism is maintaining a status quo, and that status quo is the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

Is the war on drug's, The communist witch hunts, Making it harder to vote, blocking female equal pay, making abortion harder and every other far right crusade the ideal of the founding fathers? It seems to me conservatives did not even want to revolt. They where loyal to England.

 

[Misterveritis]

This is a very good point, IMO. The comparison is particularly obvious in regards to the tendency of treating the founding fathers - like the biblical authors - as a single cohesive unit whose views were all similar, and coincidentally the same as those of the person professing to teach what they 'really' intended.

Even a cursory reading of some more readily-available comments suggests that Benjamin Franklin's views, for example, were almost socialist in nature:

Property: Benjamin Franklin to Robert Morris
. . .

Strangely, the folk who appeal to their Founding Fathers most frequently seem to overlook all the comments which don't fit their ideology.​

Since you are making the case that B. Franklin was "almost socialistic" can you look over his lifetime of writing and make a more substantial case?

The founders were not all right all of the time. I doubt that any one of them was right on every issue all of the time. Taken as a whole they were right enough to create a nation founded on individual liberty and freedom.

You remind me of a specific fool who probably posted here for a while. He looked at over 900 pages written by Adam Smith and found one paragraph that said the rich should pay more. So in his befuddled mind the remaining 899 pages and a half counted for nothing.

Of the hundreds of thousands of pages written you found one page where B. Franklin complains that the people were not willing to grant the state the authority to pick their pockets to pay principal and interest on the public debt. That was one of the major complaints against the Articles of Confederation. And, in your mind that makes Benjamin Franklin "almost socialistic."

Make a better case. I will read it.​

 

[Misterveritis]

Amusing :lol:

In my last week visiting Vancouver I've been watching The Roosevelts: An Intimate History on Seattle's KCTS (PBS). It's interesting to see, even in the days of Theodore Roosevelt, both how his Republican ideals were not necessarily the same as those of politicians a hundred years earlier, but also how parochial, even imperialist he seems in other respects. I'm looking forward to seeing whether FDR was really as nasty and evil as modern Republicans seem to insist.

When one watches leftist propaganda what should one expect to learn? I believe you will learn that the totalitarian leftists were the nation's saviors.

Isn't that what propaganda is for?

 

[Misterveritis]

Much of the gross indecencies of the time were actually challenged and changed in the federal courts later. We have had relatively few amendments (thank God) due to the flexibility of the original constitution.

Another totalitarian statist reveals himself.

 

[Misterveritis]

Here! Here! Well spoken!

Some folks prefer to keep American society locked in and yoked to an almost ancient set of rules with no room for adaptation and progression of society. They are against the freedom of future generations to decide their own fate. Reminds me of the Taliban.

Of course you speak as all totalitarians speak.