This is very timely, and reminds me of George Washington pleading for Americans to beware party politics in his farewell address[1], where he willingly surrendered power and went home:
> The alternate domination of one faction over
another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to
party dissension, which in different ages and countries
has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a
frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more
formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and
miseries which result gradually incline the minds of
men to seek security and repose in the absolute power
of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some
prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his
competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of
his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
> ...It opens the door to foreign influence and
corruption, which find a facilitated access to the
government itself through the channels of party
passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country
are subjected to the policy and will of another.
Washington was mad about political parties because his federalist-aligned coalition was collapsing. He resigned because of his declining health and because it was no longer obvious he could win if be ran again, and he feared the resulting reputational damage. There was extreme political contention at the time and Washington’s administration was becoming increasingly controversial. This very deeply bothered him, because he didn’t like opposition.
In the words of Thomas Paine:
> Being now once more abroad in the world I began to find that I was not the only one who had conceived an unfavourable opinion of Mr. Washington. It was evident that his character was on the decline as well among Americans as among foreigners of different nations. From being the chief of a government, he had made himself the chief of a party; and his integrity was questioned, for his politics had a doubtful appearance.
This culminated in his federalist allies later criminalizing free speech and deporting dissidents under the Alien and Sedition Acts.
The farewell address was an explicitly political speech and you should read it in its historical context. You wouldn’t read Bush, Obama, or Trump speeches and take them at face value. Don’t read past ones at face value.
That's an interesting take. Washington did not support the federalists in all things, in fact he likely prevented most of their extremist actions while he was in power. The citizen Genet affair had concerned him greatly, because Jefferson had invited the French in against the wishes of the state department. Sort of like Trump cozying up to dictators like Putin now, he worried about people putting faction over country, or putting themselves over the constitution. Your disapproval of Washington does explain a lot to me about how we've gotten to our current point, and tells me that he was not wrong to worry.
> The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
> Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
The second paragraph has a lot of emotional appeal, but the technical context in which it was written has massively changed. When Washington wrote this, intercontinental travel and commerce were powered by sails or horses, and the most advanced weapons were repeating guns that were cranked by hand; the most efficient printing press or workshops might have been driven by a water wheel.
Engines to power trains and ships, air travel, intercontinental missiles, satellite surveillance, instantaneous global communication, real-time video streaming, and programmatic information synthesis and distribution were unimaginable in the 18th century, but unavoidable military and economic realities in the 21st, and have great strategic importance. A nostalgic retreat into autarchy and isolation is about as realistic as erecting large statues to ward off natural disasters.
You have, without any context or explanation, quoted something which presumably states a point you are trying to make, one which seems at best a non sequitur to the parent's post if I am reading your intent correctly.
Care to use your own words to carry on the conversation rather than just stirring the pot with a seemingly unrelated and controversial opinion stated via someone else's words?
I think not getting too enmeshed in their politics is still generally a good idea though I doubt that George Washington of all people would be unsympathetic towards people fighting for their own independence and liberty against a foreign power looking to strip them of those rights
Sure was a simpler time. Now we have Russia pointing nuclear weapons at all our major population centers, and the engagements we have with a number of our allies against this nation are not being fulfilled, in bad faith.
> Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or very remote relation.
Right, but the implication he makes is now vacuous, as the precondition of ‘remote relation’ was no longer true once the world became ‘smaller’ through improvements in transportation, logistics, and communication.
Unfortunately people as a mass, don’t tend to learn from history. Or at least forget the lessons from history fairly easily. Maybe we are doomed to repeat the same historical lessons.
The US has been a 'democratic republic' for almost 250 years, so many generations have learned.
Such government has thrived in every culture and place, from East Asia to South Asia to almost all the Americas, many parts of Africa, Europe of course. Somehow, democracy works exceptionally well - far better than any alternative ever has - and is resilient.
... unless the people are somehow convinced that it is not, that it is not important, and they despair and give up.
Our system of government was predicated on different geographical interests pushing against each other, it was well understood that if “the rich” grouped together and put their class interest above the interests of the people around them, our system would fail. This language against factions, the paternal idea that rich elites would act against their own economic interests to serve some higher good… it had failed before it even started. We didn’t make it one term. While Washington was giving this speech there were already factions, that is why he was cautioning against them.
The US "experiment" is touted as a success but it demonstrably is not. Less than 80 years after this utterance, the country descended into a Civil War, then the most deadly war ever fought. The US was founded on white supremacy and chattel slavery. Chattel slavery may be gone but slavery is alive and well in the form of convict leasing. And of course white supremacy is resurgent.
As someone wh grew up in the 70s, 80s and 90s, I rreally wish there was a way for younger people to experience that. There were problems, of course. The Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation loomed large. Homophobia was worse. Racism was worse.
Many, myself included, describe the 1990s as the last good decade. Standard-of-living peaked in 1972 [1] but even in the 1990s, things were still pretty good. Rent was cheap, housing was cheap, food was cheap. There were houses in the 1990s for under $100k that now sell for $2M+. I lived frugally but comfortably on $10k/year as a student, including renting a 2 bedroom apartment.
I cannot adequately express my view of how dire things are now. We are bouldering towards neofeudalism. There is no opposition. Nobody is coming to save us.
Realistically, virtually every revolution in history involved some degree of foreign assistance, and more organization than spontaneous popular action.
- The constitutional debate with Elbridge Gerry (MA), the name behind Gerrymandering
- The proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives from one representative for every 40,000 people to one for every 30,000, which if continued today would make it much harder to gerrymander, among other things.
A friend of mine suggested that one for every 40,000 would be exactly the right amount of representation.
Not only would there be much more accurate representation, and much more accountable representation, it would also be much more difficult to bribe enough
This is very interesting to think about, though. What if there were many more representatives? It doesn't have to be one for every 40,000, but suppose there were 2,000 representatives. Of course there are logistical challenges to increasing the number of representatives, such as needing an increased budget for legislators' salaries, as well as having sufficient space for all of the legislators to meet.
I do see potential benefits to having more representatives, though I'm not a political scientist and these may just be educated guesses and aspirational hopes:
1. Since each representative's constituency would be smaller, we may see a greater mix of political reviews reflected in the House of Representatives, since larger constituencies may have an "averaging" effect.
2. It may be harder for special interests to exert their influence on 2,000 representatives compared to 435. Simultaneously, it may be easier for everyday people to influence their representatives since each district is smaller in population. Consider the impact somebody living in a small town has on government there, compared to someone living in a large city.
3. Related to #2, it may be harder for political parties to impose their will on representatives since they have a lot more people they have to influence.
4. If there were more opportunities for everyday people to serve as elected officials, then perhaps people may feel more invested in their government rather than seeing government as a distant entity that runs counter to the well-being of society. This could serve as an effective counter to the disaffectedness we see in modern American society.
Once again, though, these are just educated guesses.
We have legislated racial gerrymandering which that would do nothing to combat. The simple fix against gerrymandering is to get rid of the concept of districts and just let people vote on house members at the state level, and have enough representatives that one populous locale couldn't dominate the reps
I would think that majority-minority districts would arise more naturally with smaller districts. Currently the average district covers over three quarters of a million people, more than the population of Seattle. Something like fifty thousand people per district would give the neighborhood of Harlem in NYC four representatives.
I believe when this document was written, the only people allowed to vote were white males not in indentured servitude. The document was written by people who were actively amassing wealth. It doesn't mean its not a wise document but make no mistake about the people who were excluded from its initial benefits.
The major benefit of the document was an establishment of a constitutional republic with the ability to modify the constitution when desired by a majority of the republics representatives. That was path breaking at a time when the world was steeped in feudal politics.
As far as I would think, each state could set their own requirements for voting, and some ownership of land was also a requirement from what I remember.
So Google suggested "who could vote in 1789” and the top result was from the Regan library.
"The most common requirements for voter eligibility was that each prospective voter had to be a white male who owned property of a certain dollar value.
"...by the time of the 1828 Presidential Election, the majority of the land-ownership requirements were eliminated from state laws. The final state to remove the property requirement was North Carolina in 1856, just five years before the Civil War began.
"...Certain states went through cycles where the right to vote was granted, removed, and re-granted to ethnic minorities over the course of decades... In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to all American men regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The right to vote was now Federally defined, but it would take one-hundred years of historical, social, and political developments for the VRA to universally enshrine it."
> I believe when this document was written, the only people allowed to vote were white males not in indentured servitude.
No, the rules for who could vote were determined by the individual States. Women and Africans could vote in New Jersey when this document was written, for example.
Later Constitutional amendments made the practices much more consistent across States. Something to keep in mind is that people voting for Presidents and Senators is a 20th century invention, voting rights were much more local back then.
> The document was written by people who were actively amassing wealth. It doesn't mean its not a wise document but make no mistake about the people who were excluded from its initial benefit
Fair, but the document was written 200 years ago and society evolves....
Readit News
> The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.
> ...It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
He could've written this last week.
[1] https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/W...
In the words of Thomas Paine: > Being now once more abroad in the world I began to find that I was not the only one who had conceived an unfavourable opinion of Mr. Washington. It was evident that his character was on the decline as well among Americans as among foreigners of different nations. From being the chief of a government, he had made himself the chief of a party; and his integrity was questioned, for his politics had a doubtful appearance.
This culminated in his federalist allies later criminalizing free speech and deporting dissidents under the Alien and Sedition Acts.
The farewell address was an explicitly political speech and you should read it in its historical context. You wouldn’t read Bush, Obama, or Trump speeches and take them at face value. Don’t read past ones at face value.
Dead Comment
> Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Engines to power trains and ships, air travel, intercontinental missiles, satellite surveillance, instantaneous global communication, real-time video streaming, and programmatic information synthesis and distribution were unimaginable in the 18th century, but unavoidable military and economic realities in the 21st, and have great strategic importance. A nostalgic retreat into autarchy and isolation is about as realistic as erecting large statues to ward off natural disasters.
Care to use your own words to carry on the conversation rather than just stirring the pot with a seemingly unrelated and controversial opinion stated via someone else's words?
Since context is important the speech also references the Neutrality proclamation of 1793 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Neutrality). I would say the stuff on European policy needs to be viewed through the lens of the wars there at the time (which I think are these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_First_Coalition)
A key part.
Right, but the implication he makes is now vacuous, as the precondition of ‘remote relation’ was no longer true once the world became ‘smaller’ through improvements in transportation, logistics, and communication.
Such government has thrived in every culture and place, from East Asia to South Asia to almost all the Americas, many parts of Africa, Europe of course. Somehow, democracy works exceptionally well - far better than any alternative ever has - and is resilient.
... unless the people are somehow convinced that it is not, that it is not important, and they despair and give up.
The American republic is failing in exactly the ways Plato and Socrates would've predicted it would.
It’s better for my mental
The US "experiment" is touted as a success but it demonstrably is not. Less than 80 years after this utterance, the country descended into a Civil War, then the most deadly war ever fought. The US was founded on white supremacy and chattel slavery. Chattel slavery may be gone but slavery is alive and well in the form of convict leasing. And of course white supremacy is resurgent.
As someone wh grew up in the 70s, 80s and 90s, I rreally wish there was a way for younger people to experience that. There were problems, of course. The Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation loomed large. Homophobia was worse. Racism was worse.
Many, myself included, describe the 1990s as the last good decade. Standard-of-living peaked in 1972 [1] but even in the 1990s, things were still pretty good. Rent was cheap, housing was cheap, food was cheap. There were houses in the 1990s for under $100k that now sell for $2M+. I lived frugally but comfortably on $10k/year as a student, including renting a 2 bedroom apartment.
I cannot adequately express my view of how dire things are now. We are bouldering towards neofeudalism. There is no opposition. Nobody is coming to save us.
[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-...
Of course. It depends on the people - either we oppose it and save us, or nobody will. That's the nature of democracy.
If you expect someone else to do it, that is, in a way, 'neofeudalism' - you are docile while some powerful person does things.
By what metric was that the most deadly?
- The constitutional debate with Elbridge Gerry (MA), the name behind Gerrymandering
- The proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives from one representative for every 40,000 people to one for every 30,000, which if continued today would make it much harder to gerrymander, among other things.
One for every 40,000 might be overkill given that would result in 8,500 reps in the House.
For US population, the ideal number would be 693 representatives. That would be close to 500,000 people per district.
1 per 40,0000 is like the mayor of a town.
Not only would there be much more accurate representation, and much more accountable representation, it would also be much more difficult to bribe enough
I do see potential benefits to having more representatives, though I'm not a political scientist and these may just be educated guesses and aspirational hopes:
1. Since each representative's constituency would be smaller, we may see a greater mix of political reviews reflected in the House of Representatives, since larger constituencies may have an "averaging" effect.
2. It may be harder for special interests to exert their influence on 2,000 representatives compared to 435. Simultaneously, it may be easier for everyday people to influence their representatives since each district is smaller in population. Consider the impact somebody living in a small town has on government there, compared to someone living in a large city.
3. Related to #2, it may be harder for political parties to impose their will on representatives since they have a lot more people they have to influence.
4. If there were more opportunities for everyday people to serve as elected officials, then perhaps people may feel more invested in their government rather than seeing government as a distant entity that runs counter to the well-being of society. This could serve as an effective counter to the disaffectedness we see in modern American society.
Once again, though, these are just educated guesses.
The major benefit of the document was an establishment of a constitutional republic with the ability to modify the constitution when desired by a majority of the republics representatives. That was path breaking at a time when the world was steeped in feudal politics.
So Google suggested "who could vote in 1789” and the top result was from the Regan library.
https://reagan.blogs.archives.gov/2022/03/29/road-to-the-vot...
Reading...
"The most common requirements for voter eligibility was that each prospective voter had to be a white male who owned property of a certain dollar value.
"...by the time of the 1828 Presidential Election, the majority of the land-ownership requirements were eliminated from state laws. The final state to remove the property requirement was North Carolina in 1856, just five years before the Civil War began.
"...Certain states went through cycles where the right to vote was granted, removed, and re-granted to ethnic minorities over the course of decades... In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment granted the right to vote to all American men regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The right to vote was now Federally defined, but it would take one-hundred years of historical, social, and political developments for the VRA to universally enshrine it."
No, the rules for who could vote were determined by the individual States. Women and Africans could vote in New Jersey when this document was written, for example.
Later Constitutional amendments made the practices much more consistent across States. Something to keep in mind is that people voting for Presidents and Senators is a 20th century invention, voting rights were much more local back then.
Fair, but the document was written 200 years ago and society evolves....