Free Topic

George Washington: "Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally."

It may be natural for people to congregate into parties, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a constant attack on independent and truly thoughtful thinking. Political parties, moreover, force candidates with good ideas to sacrifice their ability to advertise those ideas that may contradict the overall accepted ideology of the party. Parties believe that the ideas of many mediocre men combined is better than the ideas of one great man. Finally, party politics is based on too much black and white thinking, and not enough moderate, gray thinking, that combines the best of both sides. Overall, party politics is harmful to government.

The greatest minds are independent ones. Every genius, in whatever field he is a part of, has thought independent of the commonly accepted ideas and trends of his era. If any groundbreaking, genius, novel, or genuinely thoughtful ideas are going to come into practice in politics, then they are going to have to come from such a line of thinking – one that does not have anything common to it. Parties are built in a way that ideas that come out of any party system is never too far away from the commonly accepted practices within that party. A party is not going to allow a candidate to run for presidency who has ideas that stray too farm from the common line of thinking. This is the primary reason why we never see anything genius voted into law, why there are never any solutions to problems that are absolutely revolutionary in theory and effectiveness. Why shouldn’t we see genius in politics if we see it in medicine, technology, writing, film, or any other field?

Parties are run by many people, where no one person is spectacularly bright, as is the case with any grouping of people. The opposite of that is excellence, and the greatest men in history are either ruling over this group of lesser leaders or disassociating themselves with that group completely, as to think completely independent of mediocrity. When greater men do enter this system, they are forced to compromise their better ideas for the desires of the many.

People have a very difficult time thinking in grey. Parties exacerbate this deficiency in thinking. For example, Republicans have the right idea on cutting spending in general as well as abolishing most cases of abortion; Democrats want to increase health – care spending for those who cannot afford it (I do not, as you think, support government – funded healthcare for people who can easily afford it. I wasn’t specific enough about that) as well as end pointless military endeavors and give equal rights to gay couples. Both parties are right, and the right idea is to combine their right ideas. You cannot do this in party politics, and if you try you will at the least not be voted in, and at the most asked to leave the party.

The ideal situation would be the elimination of parties. I never said it was ever going to happen, and it’s hard to see politicians accepting the idea of running independent, as there are many personal and financial disadvantages that the average politician doesn’t want to deal with. At the least, I would like to see independent – only formats in the run for the presidency. In conclusion, independence is the compliment of brilliance and novelty, and party politics is mediocrity.

Note: It could easily be interpreted that I support despotism. I don’t…unless the despot is exceptionally brilliant and moral in his ideas.

Spending

In our time, our nation is wealthier than ever, but more also has accumulated tremendous debt. The debt threatens social security for near – future recipients, as well as the lives of the uninsured sick. The problem obviously becomes, where should the government focus its spending on and where should necessary cuts be made. Spending and finding new ways to spend is easy, but making cuts is a difficult process based on an unfortunate but unavoidable game of priority. That said, some areas in government spending do need to be increased, and cuts are not the complete answer.

Firstly, and most obviously to me, the Iraq war must be terminated as soon as possible, without being careless, of course. According to the National Priorities Project, over $470 billion has been spent on the war in Iraq. This amount will continue to rise, and will do so drastically even if a careful withdrawal was begun today. I’ve said it many times in my blogs, but I’ll say it again: in order for stability to be achieved in Iraq, the hearts and minds of many, many Iraqis must be changed from a mindset of tyranny and radical religious violence. Militaries don’t do that, and the only way to achieve a forced stability is to resort to the most brutal enforcement tactics known to history.

The great vacuum of the modern educational system is deeply flawed, but reversing the system is not the issue for this blog; the focus, then, is on cutting money flowing to that vacuum. It is a vacuum that demands everything and gives nothing close to what is desired. Smaller classes and more teachers will cost countless dollars, and will not motivate unmotivated kids without direction – those kids’ issues run deep into their family structure and value systems that can only be fixed through a change in mindset of the generation responsible for those kids. The source of the success of successful people in society is not their grade schooling. Grade school is not anywhere near as important to success as a good family and a strong value system and people who will be successful in the future will do it with or without stronger science and math programs or smaller class sizes or more qualified teachers. Learning in individuals will take place, as well, on their own accord, and by their own level of desire. Look back into history and see that a century ago when the education system was much less extensive and had a much lesser percentage of the federal budget at its disposal, people got more from the system.

Right now, the government has two obligations it is not fulfilling or will not be able to fulfill in the future: health insurance for children and social security for people in the future who are paying for the security now through taxes. Having no health care for even one child is obviously unacceptable, and every minor must be given health care coverage from the government. The social security system cannot be allowed to collapse for people paying for it now. Tax money that should go to the SS system goes to the general fund immediately after being received, as it is. This is unacceptable.

Iraq is obvious, but the education system cuts result from deep flaws in a system developed over hundreds of years and is definitely debatable. Much spending must be done, but I have focused on more obvious and immediate concerns. Ultimately, risks must be taken and time must tell the truth, as the process is always an experiment.

2008 Issues

I think the candidates in the 2008 race should focus on three categories of issues. First and foremost, the candidates must focus on the wavering morality of a government with often questionable policies; for example, the authorization of the torture of prisoners of war to obtain information. Second, they must address economic and social issues that effect American citizens; working on eradicating unnecessary government spending falls under this category, as does the pursuit of a more comprehensive healthcare system. Finally, candidates should focus on foreign policy and issues such as the growing hostility toward the U.S.

Our government must only be involved in foreign affairs as far as it concerns the United States’ own welfare and flourishing, and wars should not be initiated in order to save another nation from tyranny, but foreign policy is still an area of vast importance to any president. Candidates should emphasize the exit strategy for Iraq in their debates and speeches – it would be a shame to have another president who wanted to use military presence as the tool for changing the hearts and minds of an entire nation, and an exit strategy is very necessary at this point. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran is, of course, a serious threat to the stability of the Middle East, U.S. ally Israel, and even the U.S. itself. Candidates must make their positions on the issue of Iran and its desire for nuclear weapons clear, and must present ideas for dealing with the threat.

Social and economic issues must obviously be addressed. Over eight million children have no health insurance in the U.S. Nearly 47 million people in total in the U.S. do not have health insurance (Health Insurance Coverage). Candidates must come up with a sensible plan for, at the very least, addressing this issue regarding children. It would be sensible for a candidate to suggest that cutting spending in other areas, such as in Iraq and other military related spending, could help balance the spending on more (though not complete) universal – oriented healthcare (at the very least complete universal healthcare for children in the U.S.). Immigration should be a more predominant issue in the presidential race as well. Candidates should make it clear that efforts must be made toward legalizing illegal aliens already in the U.S., as deporting so many just will not happen by any stretch of the imagination; then, candidates must put thoughtful plans on the table regarding the securing of the border so more illegal aliens do not make it in in the first place.

Most importantly, candidates must address moral shortcomings in the actions of the government. The predominate issue in this category is that of the torturing of prisoners of war. Whether it is water boarding or sleep deprivation, torture of the psyche is still torture, and in many ways it is the essence of the brutality and barbarism of torture. Candidates must make it clear that they will abolish all forms of torture so that our nation can claim civility and a denouncement of brutality and barbarism. An ethical treatment of the human being has nothing to do with infliction of pain where that infliction can and should be avoided.

The candidates should address all of these categories and issues. I understand that a drastic amount of change is hard to achieve under any one term or even two, but certainly damage done by the current administration can be, at least to some extent, reversed. The further addressing of those issues that probably cannot be taken care of in one or two terms, such as the complete deviation from unnecessary spending, should still be present in the race, as intent and effort is often enough to give initiative to future administrations and generations.

“Health Insurance Coverage.” National Coalition on Health Care 17 November, 2007.

2008 Race

Note: I replaced the republican bid blog with my amendment blog, so I will devote a small portion of this blog to naming the candidate I think will most likely be the republican 2008 presidential candidate.

The 2008 race is as unpredictable as ever, with many factors in the mix. The republican field may be dominated by, as usual, all white males, but the democratic field will most likely feature either an African American or a woman candidate. I have previously chosen Hilary Clinton as the most likely candidate for the democratic party, and I will address the bid for the republican party followed by an analysis of who will win between those two.

The republican bid sees either Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani in the candidacy by the end of the GOP convention. I give a slight edge to Mitt Romney. Giuliani has demonstrated he can lean too far left on a number of occasions and issues, most notably that of abortion – he has supported, in the past, the pro – choice position. Some far right Christians, who hold plenty of power in the GOP, are shocked that a republican candidate like Romney can hold to Mormon beliefs, but I doubt this will sway enough voters toward the Giuliani camp, especially because these same ultra – conservative Christians are even more fearful of Giuliani’s stance on abortion. The fact is, Romney’s moral system is very similar to that of any Christian’s, and like most religious people, it is very likely he has accepted religion because he believes he will better himself through it, not because he really believes in every teaching of Mormonism as the ultimate truth. Romney will win the republican bid, if slightly.

Clinton vs. Romney: interesting only because it is the highest level of competition on the earth. Neither are strike anyone as brilliant or head – turningly charismatic or interesting. It is another election of mediocrity.

That said, Clinton does have the edge. Romney is slightly more dull, if only for Clinton’s greater volume and extra passion in speech. Clinton represents change, and no matter what Romney says, America will never see him as a great enough swing away from Bush administration policy; people right now want change, or at least they want to hear someone say they will change things, though in actuality few people are ever bold enough to approve of real change when it’s finally time for business. Lastly, Clinton is a woman; I think this will earn her more votes than some people imagine. If I were part of a society or club of some kind that had elected a woman as president every year of its existence, I would have to vote for a man in the next election no matter what his stance, because of ego. Women may not yet have as great an ego as the man, but culture is quickly changing that. Many women will vote for Clinton because of ego.

It might be tight, but I would lean more toward Clinton with a comfortable win. I’m not calling it a landslide by any stretch of the imagination, but Clinton could win the office with relative ease. I mean Romney won’t feel the need to call for a recount.

Constitution Paper

5^th Amendment

The 5^th Amendment is one of the ten Bill of Rights amendments, and pertains to legal procedure. In it are such key concepts to the American legal system as due process and the right to remain silent. Like much of the Bill of Rights, its roots can be traced back to the Magna Carta, the English Charter issued in 1215. It was implemented as one of the crucial guidelines to the interaction of the people and their laws. Its protection of the people’s rights under the law is a cornerstone of the American legal system, and it is a foundational concept to American democracy as a whole. Like many of the amendments, however, its implications remain today controversial, as it contains guidelines to the execution of acts pertaining to eminent domain. Interpreting the 5^th amendment and its implications regarding the issue of eminent domain remains highly controversial. It is undisputed, though, that the 5^th amendment is one of the most essential additions to the constitution, and understanding its content and implications is vital in the study of American government.

The first section of the amendment deals with indicting citizens for “infamous” crimes. The exact definition of infamous crimes is fairly modern, as it was addressed in Green v. U.S. (1958) where the Supreme Court defined an infamous crime as one in which a person serves a year or more in prison for (Infamous Crimes). The amendment states that no person can be indicted, or charged, with an infamous act, particularly one pertaining to murder, unless the person has been indicted by a grand jury. Exceptions to this rule apply to citizens in the military during war: in such cases, the military does not have to indict military personnel by way of a grand jury. A conflict with this particular exception came in the case O’Callahan v. Parker in 1969. In the case, an accused Sergeant had committed a federal offence while off duty and in civilian attire. The court martial that was scheduled to try the Sergeant was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because it bypassed indictment by grand jury. Normally, this would be considered undisputedly constitutional, but since the Sergeant was off – duty, the Supreme Court ruled that the court – martial had no jurisdiction to try the Sergeant (Milestone in Military Justice).

Today, with the fourteenth amendment in effect, this section of the 5^th amendment is not required by states. Today, two states do not have indictment by grand jury as a legal process. About half of the states do not require it.

The second section of the 5^th amendment prohibits double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is the act of trying a person for a single crime more than once. Formerly, this section did not pertain to state courts, but that was changed in Benton v. Maryland (1969). John Benton had been formerly charged of larceny and burglary by a Maryland court. The court found him guilty of burglary, but acquitted him of larceny. The jurors in the trial were required to swear their belief in God, but this process was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Schowgurow v. State. The state allowed Benton to undergo a new trial, but this time Benton was found guilty for both Burglary and Larceny. The Supreme Court ruled this new accusation of Larceny, where he had formerly been acquitted, as double jeapordy. Before, restrictions on double jeopardy did not apply to state courts, but the Supreme Court revised this and subsequently ruled that double jeopardy would from then on be ruled unconstitutional in state courts (Benton v. Maryland).

The most important ideal in the 5^th amendment has to do with the establishment of due process. The amendment states that no person, whether a citizen of the U.S. or not, may be punished for a crime without the due process of law, or in other words without a trial. This idea evolved directly from the Magna Carta, which prohibited unlawful imprisonment or punishment of any other kind.

Another famous subject of the 5^th amendment was the protection of witnesses from self – incrimination in a trial. Witnesses in a trial do not have to answer a question if they plead their 5^th amendment right. The reasoning behind this is that a witness may incriminate himself through answering a particular question, or he may put himself in danger of outside harm by accusing a gang member or such of a crime. This section has had a great effect on interrogation methods used by officials and police. In Chambers v. Florida (1940), for example, a witness to a crime had been interrogated for five straight days, without the ability to communicate to the outside world. The Supreme Court ruled that the information obtained from that interrogation was not to be used, as it was forced from the person, and that not allowing a witness to have a lawyer with him in the interrogation was unconstitutional. The length allowed for any one interrogation was lessened as well (Chambers v. Florida).

The final subject of the 5^th amendment deals with a highly controversial matter, that of eminent domain. The amendment states that the government has the power to use any tract of land already owned by a citizen for public use. The government is required to compensate the person(s) from whom they take the land from. The most controversial implication of the amendment is in the fact that it does not restrict the government from seizing land and giving it to private companies or developers. The only restriction is that the land must be used for the good of the public. In Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 5 – 4 that the city could take land from one private owner and give it to another, as the new private owner would use the land to further the economy of the city by building a research facility for the pharmaceutical company, Pfizer. The ruling did not violate the 5^th amendment, and the prior owner was compensated, however criticism of the ruling is based on moral claims, and not the actual legality of the decision (Kelo v. City of New London).

The 5^th amendment is critical to the legal system of the American government in many ways, and the reasons for its ratification are obvious. All concepts within it are essential to a fair and working legal system, with the exception of eminent domain, which is a debatable inclusion. Without due process, the prevention of self – incrimination and self – endangering, and the prevention of double jeopardy, we would have a chaotic legal system that endangered citizens and threw law back into the dark ages where inquisition threatened any good person.

“Benton v. Maryland.” Wikipedia. 27 October, 2007.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benton_v._Maryland>

“Chambers v. Florida.” The Justice Line. 27 October, 2007

< http://www.injusticeline.com/chambers.html>

“Infamous Crimes.” Federal Grand Jury. 27 October, 2007.

“Kelo v. New London.” Cornell University Law School. 27

October, 2007. < http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html>

“Milestone in Military Justice.” Duke Law. 27 October,

2007. < http://eprints.law.duke.edu/archive/00000357/>

Democratic Field

The Democratic party has a relatively strong field in terms of their presidential candidates this time around – certainly stronger than in 2004. Democratic candidates have been painted as at least slightly smarter than the average Republican candidate as well, due largely to the verbal mannerisms of the current president. They have weaknesses, but plenty of people will be willing to ignore these for the chance to remove anyone associated with republican views from office. The Democratic candidates will have the advantage, or the many advantages, coming into the 2008 election.

Currently, polls put Hillary Clinton in first place, by fairly large margins. Many merely want to see a woman in office, and this is Clinton’s first and most obvious advantage. Another obvious advantage is her publicity above all other candidates: she was the first lady, and has been one of the most prominent democratic senators in the time since then. Clinton also has husband Bill, who happens to be one of the most charismatic and well – liked politicians in recent times, and whose only ambition greater than being the first first man is to be president again. Hilary does not, however, have an advantage over other candidates, especially Obama, when it comes to Iraq. Her inconsistent approach has hurt her, and her unwillingness to focus the majority of energy on the issue does not sit well with anti – war voters, of which there are many.

In second place, according to polls, is Barrack Obama, the Illinois standout senator. Obama is very popular with younger voters, and is regarded as on of the more articulate and charismatic candidates on either the democratic or republican side. He has been the standout candidate on anti – war measures, and did vote against the war, something Clinton cannot say for herself. In addition, polls show Obama is ahead of Clinton on health care issues. One thing Obama has going against him is his lack of a strong statement on homeland security, which some analysts believe is even more important than Iraq in the election. Clinton, on the other hand, has pulled ahead of Obama on this issue.

A distant third place goes to 2004 vice president candidate John Edwards, followed by a much more distant Bill Richardson. Edwards focuses on the economy more than any other of the four, and this could prove very valuable to the survival of his campaign. Edwards has not, however, been strong on Iraq, where he focuses too much energy and is too inconsistent in his approach. Richardson, however, is strong on Iraq in the sense that he is known for his opposition to the war; this is the most important issue for Richardson to focus on, and is his greatest strength. Richardson’s weakness is most likely in his lack of publicity and funds, and has too much of an uphill battle to fight to really be a serious threat to the top two candidates.

Hilary seems to have the upper hand on Obama currently. Her strength in the field of homeland security may prove too much for Obama. That, along with husband Bill, may win her the nomination.

Democracy/Iraq

“If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.” – Aristotle (Aristotle 85)

Democracy depends, in working form, entirely on the will of the people. Aristotle, in this quote, tells us that a government of democracy is one where the people are working as the government, for the sake of their country, its liberties, and its peoples’ equality. That is what a democracy, in working form, is.

“Democracy is itself, a religious faith. For some it comes close to being the only formal religion they have.” – E.B. White (White 108)

Iraq is plagued by disunity stemming from deep prejudices caused by fundamentalist Islam and thousands of years under the rule of tyrants. Some within Iraq are willing to compromise these beliefs they have built up in order to allow unadulterated liberty and democracy to prosper, but many see this as unacceptable and are willing to send the country into civil war to have their ideas reign. Democracy is much like a religion, and the absolute laws of the religious must often be put aside in order for it to work. Christians in American history were willing to restrain their doctrine in order to allow for the voices of other worldviews to be heard in law making and all politics; the founding fathers could have pressed for Christianity to be the only permitted religion, as had been done in many cases before them (Europe for hundreds of years). The religious of Iraq must do the same if they wish for their country to be unified under democracy:

“As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences.” – Eugene Mccarthy (Democracy Quotes)

The people must embrace the spirit of democracy, if democracy is to be successful:

“The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.” – Gandhi (Democracy Quotes)

In Iraq, we are attempting to forcefully impose democracy on the Iraqi people. The people must decide for themselves what government they are to have; we cannot make the choice for them. The spirit of democracy is something that is of the will and the heart. The only way democratic revolution is going to take place in Iraq is from leaders of Iraq promoting it. The leaders who have power over the will of the people, I mean, not those who have power over government. As I have written, democracy is about the people.

“The spirit of democracy cannot be established in the midst of terrorism, whether governmental or popular.” – Gandhi (Democracy Quotes)

Terrorism is meant to destroy the good will of the people and their leaders. The spirit of democracy cannot flourish within a State of fear. The Iraqi people have been terrorized by dictators in the past, and now by Islamic extremists. Many Iraqis are, understandably, terrified. The spirit of democracy, the will of the people, the spirit of the people, has an enemy that manifests itself in terrifying images. The people cannot make good choices, or any choice at all, if they are living in fear of the consequences of making the right choice. Many Islamic leaders are, themselves, terrified of the people standing up to their oppressors and refusing to be afraid of murder and torture and accepting the spirit of democracy and unifying behind it.

“The price of the democratic way of life is a growing appreciation of people's differences, not merely as tolerable, but as the essence of a rich and rewarding human experience”. – Jerome Nathanson (Democracy Quotes)

Democracy does come at a price, as Nathanson writes. People must throw off prejudice and fears in order to accept what is good for the nation as a whole. Nothing worth having comes without a price, and to have that thing fully comes at the highest of prices.

Aristotle. Politics. Kessinger Publishing, 2004.

“Democracy Quotes.” Wisdom Quotes. 28 September, 2007.

White, Elwyn. Essays of E.B. White. HarperCollins, 1999.

American Democracy and Russian Communism

“Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have so much.'” – Unknown (Braude 89)

The U.S. democracy, which functions under the political philosophy of Capitalism, and the U.S.S.R., which was a communist “republic”, are two almost completely opposite systems of government. The two were in constant contention with each other for their differences, and their differences are so great that each system demands that they contest each other in one way or another at all times. Their differences stem from one basic concept: as the quote above demonstrates, American democracy, at its heart, is based on the welfare and promotion of its people, while communism is based on complete conformity, which in essence is tyranny.

“Communism is the death of the soul. It is the organization of total conformity - in short, of tyranny - and it is committed to making tyranny universal.” – Adlai E. Stevenson (Communism Quotes)

Communist Russia was founded by a very ambitious and power – hungry revolution leader, Vladimir Lenin. He expanded on Marxist theories to create a state of ultra conformism and tyranny. No matter what he preached to the poor sect of Russia, the proletariat, Lenin, like all dictators, was primarily concerned with the consolidation of his own power, as evidenced by his lack of actions of concern toward the constantly suffering proletariat under his rule. The communist leaders that followed him were little different. Conformism promotes tyranny in all cases, as the people gather under one law – maker in order to stifle their own disagreements with the law – maker. Communism, therefore, is ultimately completely centered around a power – hungry tyrant who basic wish is to expand his own domain of power and cares little to none for his peasants.

American democracy was founded on the idea that the government serves its citizens. The constitution, along with the declaration of independence and many other founding documents, stresses the importance of a government for the people, which promotes the people’s welfare. American democracy is about the will of the people, and the general consensus toward what will work. It is as much an opposite to Communism as has ever been formulated.

“Capitalism is what people do if you leave them alone” – Kenneth Minogue (Boehm 157)

Part of promoting the welfare of the people is in accepting a philosophy of economics that best allows the people to obtain riches and all comforts they desires. Capitalism, by nature, is an unrestricting philosophy. At its core, it preaches limited government that does not interfere so much in the business of private citizens. It says that if you leave people alone and not restrict their abilities, they will obviously achieve more.

It is difficult to compare American democracy and communism of the U.S.S.R. They almost always stand in contrast. The only similarities they ever had came in form, not practice, as the communist leaders, in the later part of the existence of the U.S.S.R. attempted to form a congress and broaden the responsibilities of the formerly limited judicial system (Politics of the Soviet Union). The two were, in practice, opposites of one another, one promoting the good of the people, and the other the interests of the tyrant.

Boehm, Jim. The Handbook for Exploding the Economic Myths of the Political Sound Bite. Infinity Publishing, 2006.

Braude, Jacob. Lifetime Speaker’s Encyclopedia. Prentice Hall, 1962.

“Communism Quotes.” ThinkExist. 22 September, 2007.

< http://thinkexist.com/quotations/communism/>

“Politics of the Soviet Union.” Wikipedia. 22 September, 2007.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_Soviet_Union>

Thomas Jefferson

"The happiness and prosperity of our citizens... is the only legitimate object of government and the first duty of governors." – Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson 684)

"The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government." - Thomas Jefferson (Platt 151)

"The only orthodox object of the institution of government is to secure the greatest degree of happiness possible to the general mass of those associated under it." – Thomas Jefferson (Beigbeder 23)

The idea in these quotes underlies every endeavor our government has ever rightly taken, and was an idea propagated by Jefferson more than any other founding father. He included it prominently in the Declaration of Independence, any letter he ever wrote on good government, and in countless speeches to remind the American people why their government was in place and why it was formed in the way it was. I think that, because of this continuous utterance of the idea, perhaps no one had a clearer idea of the purpose of our government, and therefore no one worked so hard to form a government in the form that would accomplish this idea of happiness and prosperity for any citizen that would choose to pursue it.

The Declaration of Independence was our government’s first article, and remains today one of the most important articles ever written in government history. It stated the intent of the American government, a government that survives today and rules over the most powerful and prosperous country in world history. It was of course written by Thomas Jefferson and included the earliest statement of what he believed to be the most important duty of any good government: to create an environment where the rights of people were protected so that they could pursue happiness and the good life. The process of creating our government, from that point on, would revolve around this idea.

"It astonishes me to find... [that so many] of our countrymen... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries." – Thomas Jefferson (Melton 123)

Jefferson urged the writing of the Bill of Rights more than any founding father. Jefferson knew that, when the constitution was written, it simply stated what the government could and could not do, and that many founding fathers expected the government to infer from that what rights the people had. He knew this would create a loose form of government where interpretation could easily come into play, and then rights of the citizen could be trampled on due to false interpretations. He supported the authoring of a Bill of Rights to state specifically what rights the people had, ones that the government could not interpret around or take away (Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government).

The most important statement in distinguishing Thomas Jefferson as the person who should be credited most with our form of government is that it is a near fact that he was the most prominent promoter of Republicanism in early American government history. Republicanism is the predominant underlying system to our government. It stresses rights, the rejection of ideas of aristocracy and inherited political power, the sovereignty of the people as a whole, and the resistance to corruption in government and policy making (Republicanism). Jefferson repeatedly reminded and lectured every founding father and original congressman on the importance of Republicanism and its values. Every founding father continually debated the meaning of Republicanism, but it is Jefferson’s definition that stands out most today, and that most founding fathers agreed with:

"a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally, according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican, in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of the direct action of the citizens. Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population. I doubt if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township. The first shade from this pure element, which, like that of pure vital air, cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of the government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen...for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents. This I should consider as the nearest approach to a pure republic, which is practicable on a large scale of country or population ... we may say with truth and meaning, that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition; and believing, as I do, that the mass of the citizens is the safest depository of their own rights, and especially, that the evils flowing from the duperies of the people, are less injurious than those from the egoism of their agents, I am a friend to that composition of government which has in it the most of this ingredient." (Republicanism)

There are only a few men that could fall into the debate for the most influential in regards to forming our government. Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton could all easily be included into the debate. Probably none, however, would come to mind as quickly as Thomas Jefferson, the author of the declaration of independence, widely regarded by historians as our most ingenious president, probably the most influential founder of ideas of republicanism, and the forerunner in the promotion of human rights within the American government.

Beigbeder, Yves. International Monitoring of Plebiscites, Referenda and National

Elections. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1994.

Jefferson, Thomas. The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia. Funk & Wagnalls company, 1900.

Melton, Buckner. The Quotable Founding Fathers. Brassey’s, 2004.

Platt, Suzy. Respectfully Quoted. Barnes and Noble Publishing, 1993.

“Republicanism.” Wikipedia. 15 September, 2007

<>

“Bill of Rights.” Thomas Jefferson on Politics and Government. 15 September, 2007

<>

Democracy

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government." – Constitution of the United States

Our founding fathers certainly made their opinions clear on what form of government our country should take on. Today, we are a strong representative government, for several important reasons. In the beginning of the formation of our American government, the question was should it be a pure form of democracy like that seen in ancient Greece, or a representative democracy, more resembling the republic of the early Roman empire. I will examine our government’s founders’ writings and words that eventually led to our present, representative form of democracy, and prove why pure democracy not only is a poor form of government, but could actually become dangerous very quickly.

"Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet that did not commit suicide." - John Quincy Adams (Platt 413)

John Adams no doubt studied one of the first direct (pure) democracies in history – that of ancient Athens. Athens was one of the largest and most powerful city states in early ancient Greece, and under calm conditions, was fairly successful. However, when its most testing period of war, the Peloponnesian war, hit, citizens predictably became weary of conditions and attempted, themselves, to alter the form of government in Athens into a dictatorship because of the promises of leaders who desired power. This set Athenian government far behind Sparta and resulted in a deep slope that the Athenians had to climb back up. Almost all pure democracies in Ancient Greece suffered similar times of weariness in citizens that led to dictatorship at one point or another (Athenian Democracy).

"Pure Democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage", John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence. (Howse 26)

Our founding fathers realized (politically correct or not) that the majority can often hold a very emotional and uneducated view on matters, especially in difficult times. The majority particularly can fail in the subject of history, and they can have very short memories. It is of critical importance that, when faced with great decisions, history be examined to see how similar situations were dealt with and what the consequences of the choices made were. Most people would not do that. What is even more dangerous than short memory or an ‘F’ in history is, as Witherspoon puts it, the popular rage and madness of the majority. People tend to have very emotional and angry responses to hardship. If every mind in our country was more busy attempting to solve the problem of Iraq instead of voicing anger at the mistakes of our leaders, someone may have come up with a brilliant solution. The majority’s first, and often only, response to difficult situations is anger. They would sooner change leadership and reformat government than solve problems. This not only leads to backwardness, but can be much more dangerous in that it eventually leads to dictatorship, when one charismatic person takes advantage of changing moods – this was the chief concern of the founding fathers when considering pure democracy.

The country’s founders knew that representatives, elected by the majority, would still represent a majority consensus, but at the same time (again, politically correct or not) would be wiser and more educated than the average person. They would be well versed in history, and would have leadership skills that included prudence. Because of constant scrutiny, they would also be forced to be fairly consistent with their original views. Thomas Jefferson knew, when he wrote “a government for the people”, that it is best when the people are not for themselves, or serving themselves, but when an elected official (the government) is serving them.

A pure democracy, like other poor forms of government, sounds great to anyone. The founding fathers realized, however, that it just does not work in an imperfect world, where people, and the majority population in particular, can make very bad decisions based on impulse and emotions, especially anger. Prudence is key for a leader, and educated representatives, bound by law and observed constantly by the people (and the media, in the modern day), will exercise the trait much more than a mob of angry citizens who answer to no one and no law.

“Athenian Democracy.” Wikipedia. 8 September, 2007

Howse, Brannon. One Nation Under Man? Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2005.

Platt, Suzy. Respectfully Quoted. Barnes and Noble Publishing, 1993.

Note: I didn’t state anything about the fact that pure democracy is almost impossible considering the size of our country. I considered this to be completely obvious, and instead went for more substance by explaining the intellectual flaws of the system.