PDA

View Full Version : What our founding fathers thought of Democrats



eg8r
05-01-2008, 01:02 PM
From Boortz, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You might find it interesting to know what our founding fathers thought of the idea of a democracy. There's an incredible book out there titled "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. Here's your link if you might like to get a copy. The author, historian Joseph Ellis, tells us at the very beginning of this book just what our founding fathers thought of the idea of democracy. Here's what they thought of democrats:

"... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"

I know ... it truly is amazing how that phrase pretty much describes the Democrats of the day. For the most part the oratory of both Obama and Hillary have been little more than examples of pandering "to the crude and mindless whims of the masses."

</div></div> Who knew that definition would be the same after all these years.

eg8r

Deeman3
05-01-2008, 01:39 PM
Ouch! That had to leave a mark...

SKennedy
05-01-2008, 02:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From Boortz, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You might find it interesting to know what our founding fathers thought of the idea of a democracy. There's an incredible book out there titled "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. Here's your link if you might like to get a copy. The author, historian Joseph Ellis, tells us at the very beginning of this book just what our founding fathers thought of the idea of democracy. Here's what they thought of democrats:

"... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"

I know ... it truly is amazing how that phrase pretty much describes the Democrats of the day. For the most part the oratory of both Obama and Hillary have been little more than examples of pandering "to the crude and mindless whims of the masses."

</div></div> Who knew that definition would be the same after all these years.

eg8r </div></div>

Which is why we are actually a Republic. In fact democrats don't truly believe in a true democracy either as evidenced by the existence of "superdelegates!" You know, the same folks who complained about doing away with the "electoral college" and advocating election decisions based upon a true democratic process (popular vote only).

Deeman3
05-01-2008, 02:12 PM
I would not think a true democratic vote, for elevtion purposes only, would frighten people so much anymore. Of course, if your belief system is that people are not capable of making these decisions on their own and need a "for a better good" group of overseers, it may make sense. Look at how much less expensive this process would be. We would still remain a Representative Republic in all other forms but let the bpopular vote rule for electing our leaders. Would make Jerrimandering (Sp?) a thing of the past.

nAz
05-01-2008, 02:15 PM
hey there Ed, so does this mean that Andrew Jackson and Jefferson were "panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses"?

Actually i like the idea of my elected leaders doing what the people want for once... better then "big business having their every whims catered to.

wolfdancer
05-01-2008, 02:30 PM
Elbridge Gerry is a hero to the Republican party...and he lent his name to the time honored principle of "gerrymandering" as practiced and perfected by ...well you know who...I understand that was part of the "K Street" agenda.
Ed has been borrowing heavily lately from the lww book of political etiquette ....making wild associations...this time involving a time span of some 200 plus years.
In the mid 1800s, ed would have been a Whig:
"By contrast, the Democrats hearkened to the Jeffersonian political philosophy ideal of an egalitarian agricultural society, advising that traditional farm life bred republican simplicity, while modernization threatened to create a politically powerful caste of rich aristocrats who threatened to subvert democracy."
It
would have all been so simple, had we stayed on the farm....

Deeman3
05-01-2008, 02:34 PM
Wolfie,

You know me. I'm just trying to pass the time until a disgruntled mob chases me up a tower and throws torches onto it. My only hope is to fool them by falling into one of the windmill blades and coming back in a sequel.

wolfdancer
05-01-2008, 02:44 PM
Is the disgruntled mob anything like the famous "townspeople" that stormed the Franenstein mansion near the end of the movie.
I always felt bad for the monster because he was only trying to fit in...and had a real eye for the ladies, but they always seemed turned off....
they did make a "Bride of, and a Son of Frankenstein" movie, so i assume he did find a soul mate... like you can nowadays, on E-Harmony....

SKennedy
05-01-2008, 02:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would not think a true democratic vote, for elevtion purposes only, would frighten people so much anymore. Of course, if your belief system is that people are not capable of making these decisions on their own and need a "for a better good" group of overseers, it may make sense. Look at how much less expensive this process would be. We would still remain a Representative Republic in all other forms but let the bpopular vote rule for electing our leaders. Would make Jerrimandering (Sp?) a thing of the past. </div></div>

I think the fear was that with a true democracy, those seeking election would promise and provide whatever to whomever just to get votes. The result would be a debt-ridden huge monstrous government with career politicians obsessed with only one (or 2)thing(s)...obtain and retain political office. The "masses" would just vote themselves whatever they want or need (by electing officials would would give it to them) and by-pass hard work, etc. Aren't we basically at, or very near, that point now?

cheesemouse
05-01-2008, 02:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nAz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
hey there Ed, so does this mean that Andrew Jackson and Jefferson were "panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses"?

Actually i like the idea of my elected leaders doing what the people want for once... better then "big business having their every whims catered to. </div></div>Naz, Ed is just longing away for the good old days when only the propertied white males had the vote...damn those women, orientals,Native Americans, and blacks they just mess everything up for Ed...

eg8r
05-01-2008, 04:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">hey there Ed, so does this mean that Andrew Jackson and Jefferson were "panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses"?</div></div>Check with the founding fathers.


eg8r

eg8r
05-01-2008, 04:03 PM
Yes, in cheese's mind pandering to the masses means screwing over the women, orientals, Native Americans, and blacks. You do have a twisted mind.

eg8r

eg8r
05-01-2008, 04:04 PM
We are dangerously close.

eg8r

wolfdancer
05-01-2008, 08:46 PM
since today's partys no longer resemble their earlier counterparts, Ed's point is moot.
however if he wants to go back in time.....the republican party was founded in 1854....so how long would you guess before the first
scandal....?????
Damn if they didn't make it all the way to 1875 before the Whiskey ring scandal was exposed.
"....Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption typified by the Whiskey Ring"
In the United States, the Whiskey Ring was a scandal, exposed in 1875, involving diversion of tax revenues in a conspiracy among government agents, politicians, whiskey distillers, and distributors. The Whiskey Ring began in St. Louis but was also organized in Chicago, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Peoria.

Before they were caught, a group of mostly Republican politicians were able to siphon off millions of dollars in federal taxes on liquor; the scheme involved an extensive network of bribes involving tax collectors, storekeepers, and others.

U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Benjamin H. Bristow, working without the knowledge of the President or the Attorney General, broke the tightly connected and politically powerful ring in 1875 using secret agents from outside the Treasury department to conduct a series of raids across the country on May 10, 1875. The trials began at Jefferson City, Mo. in October, 1875.[1]Ultimately, 110 convictions were made and over $3 million in taxes were recovered. President Grant appointed General John Brooks Henderson (a former U.S. Senator from Missouri) to serve as special prosecutor in charge of the indictments and trials, but Grant eventually fired Gen. Henderson for challenging Grant's interference in the prosecutions.

" The Whiskey Ring was seen by many as a sign of corruption under the Republican governments that took power across the nation following the American Civil War. General Orville E. Babcock, the private secretary to the President, was indicted as a member of the ring and escaped conviction only because of a presidential pardon - for this reason, President Ulysses S. Grant, although not directly involved in the ring, came to be seen as emblematic of Republican corruption, and later scandals involving his Secretary of War William W. Belknap only confirmed that perception. The Whiskey Ring scandal, along with other alleged abuses of power by the Republican party, contributed to national weariness of Reconstruction, which ended after Grant's presidency with the Compromise of 1877."
(Presidential pardon...where have I heard that term before?)
And how long before the first depression under Republican leadership? Darn if it didn't take them almost 19 yrs...(they have it down to a science now)
And continuing to this day...the "spoils system" where people are rewarded for their party loyalty and appointed to posts they are not qualified for (and here I thought GWB had invented this patronage system)
what we need now is a reemergence of the Mugwumps...honest republicans that switched parties because they opposed corruption...Wonder what our founding fathers would have thought about them???

eg8r
05-02-2008, 08:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">since today's partys no longer resemble their earlier counterparts, Ed's point is moot.</div></div>Looks like you are nervous about looking in the mirror. The current Democratic party is the perfect example of the quote.

eg8r

SKennedy
05-02-2008, 01:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">since today's partys no longer resemble their earlier counterparts, Ed's point is moot.
however if he wants to go back in time.....the republican party was founded in 1854....so how long would you guess before the first
scandal....?????
Damn if they didn't make it all the way to 1875 before the Whiskey ring scandal was exposed.
"....Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption typified by the Whiskey Ring"
In the United States, the Whiskey Ring was a scandal, exposed in 1875, involving diversion of tax revenues in a conspiracy among government agents, politicians, whiskey distillers, and distributors. The Whiskey Ring began in St. Louis but was also organized in Chicago, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Peoria.

Before they were caught, a group of mostly Republican politicians were able to siphon off millions of dollars in federal taxes on liquor; the scheme involved an extensive network of bribes involving tax collectors, storekeepers, and others.

U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Benjamin H. Bristow, working without the knowledge of the President or the Attorney General, broke the tightly connected and politically powerful ring in 1875 using secret agents from outside the Treasury department to conduct a series of raids across the country on May 10, 1875. The trials began at Jefferson City, Mo. in October, 1875.[1]Ultimately, 110 convictions were made and over $3 million in taxes were recovered. President Grant appointed General John Brooks Henderson (a former U.S. Senator from Missouri) to serve as special prosecutor in charge of the indictments and trials, but Grant eventually fired Gen. Henderson for challenging Grant's interference in the prosecutions.

" The Whiskey Ring was seen by many as a sign of corruption under the Republican governments that took power across the nation following the American Civil War. General Orville E. Babcock, the private secretary to the President, was indicted as a member of the ring and escaped conviction only because of a presidential pardon - for this reason, President Ulysses S. Grant, although not directly involved in the ring, came to be seen as emblematic of Republican corruption, and later scandals involving his Secretary of War William W. Belknap only confirmed that perception. The Whiskey Ring scandal, along with other alleged abuses of power by the Republican party, contributed to national weariness of Reconstruction, which ended after Grant's presidency with the Compromise of 1877."
(Presidential pardon...where have I heard that term before?)
And how long before the first depression under Republican leadership? Darn if it didn't take them almost 19 yrs...(they have it down to a science now)
And continuing to this day...the "spoils system" where people are rewarded for their party loyalty and appointed to posts they are not qualified for (and here I thought GWB had invented this patronage system)
what we need now is a reemergence of the Mugwumps...honest republicans that switched parties because they opposed corruption...Wonder what our founding fathers would have thought about them???
</div></div>

Poor Grant. He did a very poor job at selecting the right folks to help him and let them run wild! Great military general and a poor president.