6 ms·

Politics are _meant_ to be understood by the common person, especially in the US. The Declaration of Independence and the Consitution were intended to be under

by IncRnd 5y ago

Politics are _meant_ to be understood by the common person, especially in the US. The Declaration of Independence and the Consitution were intended to be understood by regular people. This is so that there wouldn't be a political class, who believes the common person needs to be ruled. Too bad we have that political class, anyway, along with regular people who believe politics should be inaccessible to regular people.

confidantlake 5y ago
The wealthy landowner leading the revolutionary army became king, erm I mean president, after winning the war. The guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence became ruler a short time after him. They could have decided against being rulers, but they didn't.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  Your historical summary leaves out quite a bit of actual information in order to simplify and provide a one-sided explanation. Too bad I won't fall for arguing about your soundbites.
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    Please don't leave a comment if you can't do better than this—it breaks a lot of the guidelines. Regardless of what the other guy said.
    - IncRnd 5y ago
      I'll graciously accept that as a good point. Thanks!
      - yesenadam 5y ago
        Thank you. Dang said something similar to me once, I got it from him. :-) and that being on HN is a continual lesson in not replying when feeling triggered. Anyway, some comments don't merit a reply, and are best left hanging there, wheels spinning.
  - confidantlake 5y ago
    Your historical summary leaves out quite a bit of actual information in order to simplify and provide a one-sided explanation. Too bad I got sucked into arguing with you when you obviously have the founding fathers as part of your identity and aren't open to discussing it.
- mellavora 5y ago
  To the rest of the HN community, note that they did decide against being rulers, nor did they ever act as kings. See George Washington's retirement speech: https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page... That's why we have a tradition of presidents only serving a maximum of two terms; which we only turned into a law when the tradition was violated.
  - yesenadam 5y ago
    > That's why What's why? I skimmed that link, couldn't see a reference to two terms, maybe I missed it. Maybe this is close to the truth: "Surprisingly, many of the Framers—including [Alexander] Hamilton and [James] Madison—supported a lifetime appointment for presidents selected by Congress and not elected by the people,” the [National Constitution Center] writes. “That would have made the presidency what Virginia’s George Mason called an ‘elective monarchy,’ however, and when this was put to a vote it failed by only six votes to four." Instead, they devised a complicated voting system involving the electoral college that would still ensure, as the framers desired, that presidential elections were not solely in the hands of ordinary voters. Within this system, they shortened a president’s appointment from life to four years. And because most of the framers didn’t want to set a limit on how many four-year terms a president could serve, they didn’t say anything about it in the Constitution. Nevertheless, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson ended up setting a two-term precedent. Washington declined to run a third time, but did clarify that he would’ve if he felt he was needed. Jefferson, on the other hand, specifically thought that two terms was enough for one person, and that more might overextend executive power. After these presidents, two terms became the unofficial standard. That is, until FDR broke tradition by winning elections in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. https://www.history.com/news/why-presidents-have-term-limits https://www.history.com/news/why-presidents-have-term-limits
  - confidantlake 5y ago
    You are seriously trying to claim George Washington was not a ruler? Sure he wasn't an absolute monarch and he did retire after 8 years. But he was president and the president is a ruler who has a lot in common with a constitutional monarch. One example, King George signed bills of Parliament into law, President Washington signed bills of Congress into law.
meowface 5y ago
As far as I can tell, both the "political class" and the regular people aren't very good at understanding or productively participating in politics. The only decent and thoughtful political discussions I've ever seen have come from philosophers. Which perhaps could be considered an "elite" class, too, but IMO there's zero economic or status hierarchy that serves as a barrier to entry, unlike being a politician.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  Can you name a poor philosopher? If anything, the barriers appear to me to be greater.
  - Mediterraneo10 5y ago
    > Can you name a poor philosopher? Diogenes.
    - teachingassist 5y ago
      If we must go back 2400 years, "his father minted coins for a living" doesn't really make it sound like he came from a deprived background.
      - ttonkytonk 5y ago
        You just changed the goalposts! You said a poor philosopher, not a philosopher whose parents were also poor!
  - meowface 5y ago
    If you want to be an academic philosopher, you probably need money. But, in my opinion, anyone can be a philosopher, regardless of class, wealth, education level, credentials, etc.
teachingassist 5y ago
> regular people You're skipping over the fact that only property owning white men were initially allowed to vote. That was the group which expected to gain political power from the Declaration and Constitution - that was the target audience. Defining "regular people" has a fraught history in the USA.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  People committed evil actions 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, and people unfortunately commit evil actions today. None of that changes who should be able to understand and engage in politics. In fact that is an argument that politics should be accessible to all. That way we can guard against an evil cabal of a ruling class that oppresess everyone but themselves. You've changed the discussion from the intended simplicity of politics to an argument about who was allowed to vote. In some ways, this type of strawman is similar to the types of arguments that create difficulties and barriers with present day politics.
  - confidantlake 5y ago
    The point is that you are trying to claim that they wanted to keep politics accessible to all but somehow despite their best efforts a political class emerged. Yet they didn't provide for direct democracy, enfranchised only part of the population, took the highest political offices for themselves, ect. Look at the first 5 presidents, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe. These were not some common guys off the street. These were the political elites of Colonial England and then early America.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - teachingassist 5y ago
    > You've changed the discussion from the intended simplicity of politics to an argument about who was allowed to vote. I was disagreeing directly with your point that this was intended to be simple, or for "regular people". I contend that it wasn't any of this - it was intended to enrich a room-full of people with the support of wealthy elites. The immediate effect was to shift power only slightly, and not in the direction of regular people. How is that a strawman, please? From Wikipedia: "The language of the concluding endorsement... was made intentionally ambiguous in hopes of winning over the votes of dissenting delegates" - the exact opposite of your claim. > this type of strawman is similar to the types of arguments that create difficulties and barriers with present day politics. Ironic.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The Declaration of Independence and the Consitution were intended to be understood by regular people. This is so that there wouldn't be a political class, who believes the common person needs to be ruled. This is simply factually untrue. The Articles of Confederation, and Constitution were written by and for the political class, and each addressed the immediate concerns of the political class (much narrower than the also narrow enfranchised class) at the time it was drafted and in the domain to which it was addressed. The Declaration was drafted by and for the needs of the same class but tangentially directed at the public in the US as a propaganda document, but it was even more directed at the British political class to create pressure for an immediate accommodation of the American political class (a task at which therr are some signs it might have succeeded had events on the ground not spiralled out of control as quickly as they did.)
- IncRnd 5y ago
  Yet, three of the founders wrote the Federalist Papers, which were distributed in newpaper form to people of New York.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Yet, three of the founders wrote the Federalist Papers, which were distributed in newpaper form to people of New York. The existence of a massive political propaganda effort to sell the document to the enfranchised class of a particular state (broader than the elite political class but narrower than regular people) does not prove (indeed, if anything argues against the conclusion) that the document itself was intended to be understandable too and responsive to the interests of even the enfranchised class, much less regular people.

by IncRnd 5y ago

confidantlake 5y ago

The wealthy landowner leading the revolutionary army became king, erm I mean president, after winning the war. The guy who wrote the Declaration of Independence became ruler a short time after him. They could have decided against being rulers, but they didn't.

IncRnd 5y ago
Your historical summary leaves out quite a bit of actual information in order to simplify and provide a one-sided explanation. Too bad I won't fall for arguing about your soundbites.
- yesenadam 5y ago
  Please don't leave a comment if you can't do better than this—it breaks a lot of the guidelines. Regardless of what the other guy said.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    I'll graciously accept that as a good point. Thanks!
    - yesenadam 5y ago
      Thank you. Dang said something similar to me once, I got it from him. :-) and that being on HN is a continual lesson in not replying when feeling triggered. Anyway, some comments don't merit a reply, and are best left hanging there, wheels spinning.
- confidantlake 5y ago
  Your historical summary leaves out quite a bit of actual information in order to simplify and provide a one-sided explanation. Too bad I got sucked into arguing with you when you obviously have the founding fathers as part of your identity and aren't open to discussing it.
mellavora 5y ago
To the rest of the HN community, note that they did decide against being rulers, nor did they ever act as kings. See George Washington's retirement speech: https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page=transcript https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=15&page... That's why we have a tradition of presidents only serving a maximum of two terms; which we only turned into a law when the tradition was violated.
- yesenadam 5y ago
  > That's why What's why? I skimmed that link, couldn't see a reference to two terms, maybe I missed it. Maybe this is close to the truth: "Surprisingly, many of the Framers—including [Alexander] Hamilton and [James] Madison—supported a lifetime appointment for presidents selected by Congress and not elected by the people,” the [National Constitution Center] writes. “That would have made the presidency what Virginia’s George Mason called an ‘elective monarchy,’ however, and when this was put to a vote it failed by only six votes to four." Instead, they devised a complicated voting system involving the electoral college that would still ensure, as the framers desired, that presidential elections were not solely in the hands of ordinary voters. Within this system, they shortened a president’s appointment from life to four years. And because most of the framers didn’t want to set a limit on how many four-year terms a president could serve, they didn’t say anything about it in the Constitution. Nevertheless, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson ended up setting a two-term precedent. Washington declined to run a third time, but did clarify that he would’ve if he felt he was needed. Jefferson, on the other hand, specifically thought that two terms was enough for one person, and that more might overextend executive power. After these presidents, two terms became the unofficial standard. That is, until FDR broke tradition by winning elections in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. https://www.history.com/news/why-presidents-have-term-limits https://www.history.com/news/why-presidents-have-term-limits
- confidantlake 5y ago
  You are seriously trying to claim George Washington was not a ruler? Sure he wasn't an absolute monarch and he did retire after 8 years. But he was president and the president is a ruler who has a lot in common with a constitutional monarch. One example, King George signed bills of Parliament into law, President Washington signed bills of Congress into law.

meowface 5y ago

As far as I can tell, both the "political class" and the regular people aren't very good at understanding or productively participating in politics. The only decent and thoughtful political discussions I've ever seen have come from philosophers. Which perhaps could be considered an "elite" class, too, but IMO there's zero economic or status hierarchy that serves as a barrier to entry, unlike being a politician.

teachingassist 5y ago
Can you name a poor philosopher? If anything, the barriers appear to me to be greater.
- Mediterraneo10 5y ago
  > Can you name a poor philosopher? Diogenes.
  - teachingassist 5y ago
    If we must go back 2400 years, "his father minted coins for a living" doesn't really make it sound like he came from a deprived background.
    - ttonkytonk 5y ago
      You just changed the goalposts! You said a poor philosopher, not a philosopher whose parents were also poor!
- meowface 5y ago
  If you want to be an academic philosopher, you probably need money. But, in my opinion, anyone can be a philosopher, regardless of class, wealth, education level, credentials, etc.

teachingassist 5y ago

> regular people You're skipping over the fact that only property owning white men were initially allowed to vote. That was the group which expected to gain political power from the Declaration and Constitution - that was the target audience. Defining "regular people" has a fraught history in the USA.

IncRnd 5y ago
People committed evil actions 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, and people unfortunately commit evil actions today. None of that changes who should be able to understand and engage in politics. In fact that is an argument that politics should be accessible to all. That way we can guard against an evil cabal of a ruling class that oppresess everyone but themselves. You've changed the discussion from the intended simplicity of politics to an argument about who was allowed to vote. In some ways, this type of strawman is similar to the types of arguments that create difficulties and barriers with present day politics.
- confidantlake 5y ago
  The point is that you are trying to claim that they wanted to keep politics accessible to all but somehow despite their best efforts a political class emerged. Yet they didn't provide for direct democracy, enfranchised only part of the population, took the highest political offices for themselves, ect. Look at the first 5 presidents, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe. These were not some common guys off the street. These were the political elites of Colonial England and then early America.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- teachingassist 5y ago
  > You've changed the discussion from the intended simplicity of politics to an argument about who was allowed to vote. I was disagreeing directly with your point that this was intended to be simple, or for "regular people". I contend that it wasn't any of this - it was intended to enrich a room-full of people with the support of wealthy elites. The immediate effect was to shift power only slightly, and not in the direction of regular people. How is that a strawman, please? From Wikipedia: "The language of the concluding endorsement... was made intentionally ambiguous in hopes of winning over the votes of dissenting delegates" - the exact opposite of your claim. > this type of strawman is similar to the types of arguments that create difficulties and barriers with present day politics. Ironic.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> The Declaration of Independence and the Consitution were intended to be understood by regular people. This is so that there wouldn't be a political class, who believes the common person needs to be ruled. This is simply factually untrue. The Articles of Confederation, and Constitution were written by and for the political class, and each addressed the immediate concerns of the political class (much narrower than the also narrow enfranchised class) at the time it was drafted and in the domain to which it was addressed. The Declaration was drafted by and for the needs of the same class but tangentially directed at the public in the US as a propaganda document, but it was even more directed at the British political class to create pressure for an immediate accommodation of the American political class (a task at which therr are some signs it might have succeeded had events on the ground not spiralled out of control as quickly as they did.)

IncRnd 5y ago
Yet, three of the founders wrote the Federalist Papers, which were distributed in newpaper form to people of New York.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Yet, three of the founders wrote the Federalist Papers, which were distributed in newpaper form to people of New York. The existence of a massive political propaganda effort to sell the document to the enfranchised class of a particular state (broader than the elite political class but narrower than regular people) does not prove (indeed, if anything argues against the conclusion) that the document itself was intended to be understandable too and responsive to the interests of even the enfranchised class, much less regular people.