General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOur founders never planned for the entire cabinet to be corrupted by potus
and certainly couldn't imagine half the senate being total cowards, after risking their lives to throw off british tyranny.
Barr is getting away with stonewalling the house and senate from providing information needed for investigations.
I wonder if public anger will embolden the house to impeach them all: Barr, Pompeo, Pense, MsConnell. When they refuse this next round of subpoenas, the house will have to start holding people in contempt, and hold the impeachment vote.
Until someone's seriously held responsible, no one will cooperate.
We were headed toward impeachment all along.
And we still have no confidence that they won't cheat in all future elections.
"A republic, if we can keep it." Ben Franklin 1787
http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it
The Founders intent at the national level was a representative republic. The word democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution. Most of the Founders distrusted pure democracy. Some had been frightened by Shays Revolt and equated democracy with mob rule. Others were convinced by Madison that different factions would come together until they formed a majority, and then take advantage of those who were not members of their coalition. In fact, Madison showed that throughout history, this phenomenon had destroyed every experiment in democracy.
John Adams wrote that There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide, and James Madison wrote in Federalist 10 that Democracies have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. The reason pure democracies fail is that majorities learn that they can legally take property and/or liberties away from others. Those subjected to abuse can be anyone outside the majority coalition, and their minority status can be based on race, religion, wealth, political affiliation, or even which city or state they reside in. Demagogic leaders become adept at appealing to the emotions of jealousy, avarice, and entitlement. They also denigrate opponents in order to justify prejudicial actions taken by the majority. Soon, oppression of minority classes causes enough conflicts to collapse the democratic process.
A major difference between a republic and a democracy is immediacy. The Founders wanted laws made by representatives in order to put a buffer between popular passions and legislation. In a democracy, decisions are made in the heat of the moment, while periodic elections in a republic provide a cooling off period. To a great extent, democracies are ruled by feelings, while in a republic, the rule of law governs. In a republic, politicians can take principled actions that go against the will of many of their constituents with the knowledge that they will be judged by all the actions they take during their entire term in office. Political leaders are also given time to explain the reasons for their actions.
Ford_Prefect
(7,901 posts)The founders never imagined that an entire party would be subverted to anti-democratic rule. They anticipated the ruthless power of unfettered greed, though not in a form so well organized and yet hidden at the same time.
The roots of our current problems go back to 1948 and were established in the Nixon era GOP that lead to Reagan, Bush I & II, and the Pipelineistan wars.
IthinkThereforeIAM
(3,076 posts)... he brought about the step by step, "acceptance", of corruption and attacks on the balance of the three branches. People became numb to the gradual increase in severity of the infractions. And here we are, on the precipice of a constitutional crisis.
BumRushDaShow
(129,096 posts)that the Senate (the "upper" chamber equivalent to a "House of Lords" ) was also originally selected by the state legislatures and not by popular vote, with the idea that this upper chamber could act as "the adults in the room", given a longer term of office, and generally peopled by wealthy educated men who they figured could temper the reactionary views of the House. But over time, corruption was found and finally acknowledged regarding the Senate appointment process (robber barons ran rampant and money was king) and was changed via amendment (17th in 1912), to allow for reducing the outsized cronyism and bringing about direct elections by the people... However, even with that change, loopholes were found that persist today (again due to the influence of money).
And also note that they were aware even back then, of a "south vs north" issue, which eventually lead to the Civil War, where you basically had a very "well-organized" (although not hidden) subversion by party. So I think they knew, or at least had an inkling, but had hoped it wouldn't come to that, and the debate in those Federalist Papers, between the strong national government vs the strong state government, raged but was not really resolved.
gordianot
(15,238 posts)Obama seized the middle what was once unique territory or so they thought of the Republican Party. He passed a version of Health Care authored by the Republican Party, took over National Security credentials and came close to establishing American dominance in trade. In spite of being a rather convincing moderate Republican Obama managed the old Democratic trick of saving the nation from economic collapse.
Trump and the Republican Party cannot stand it they are now the anti-Obama Party. Add the fact singularly and collectively someone smarter, who is African American, free of scandal ever existed still makes them recoil to the opposite side of the pendulum. So when they say it is Obamas fault, maybe. Obviously the ghost of Nixon has returned.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,005 posts)Trump would have been out January 2019. He would not have the confidence (formal term) of the governing majority party in the House.
Madison was wrong.
Further, the duopoly HAS formed majorities from different factions in each party.
A duopoly is almost as perverted as a monopoly.