4 ms·

Like you said, one of the issues is we have a strong federal government that passes one-size-fits all laws for everybody (Hamiltonian model). Traditionally the

Like you said, one of the issues is we have a strong federal government that passes one-size-fits all laws for everybody (Hamiltonian model). Traditionally the country was governed by states, so each state had its own set of rules to live by (Jeffersonian model). We've moved from the Jeffersonian model to the Hamiltonian model starting around the 1900s and WWI. Both have their issues. Of course a split up would negate the power of groups, meaning, each individual independent region would be weaker than the whole. This is what Lincoln was talking about during the Civil War about secession. We want to design a system so that we get the benefits of a large, powerful union but also the benefits of independently run states with none of the bad things that both can provide. Ideally each state would run itself in the way the citizens want, that also don't violate minority civil rights, while having a strong defense of a union of states.

endisneigh 5y ago
Yeah, exactly. Personally I think small states + active democracy is the way. Ultimately, freedom of movement plus observation of different modes of governance will force states to change or be abandoned. The government should apply a thin layer of rules to be followed, and otherwise let states do their own thing. In theory that's what we're already doing, but it's a matter of opinion.
taylodl 5y ago
I would argue the Civil War put the nail in the coffin of the Jeffersonian model. The 14th amendment buried the coffin. That's been over 150 years ago, in our "tween years" so to speak. The United States has spent the overwhelming majority of its lifetime under our current model. What I find ironic is the Right abhors Freedom - they don't like people having the freedom to marry whomever they want, they don't like people having the freedom to have sex with whomever they want, and they don't like people having the freedom to be whomever they want. Those are profound freedoms to argue so vehemently against. When you step back you realize it's not even a "small government" vs. "big government" thing - both sides want a big government. To me it appears the right wants a theocracy and the left wants a secular government. Which means, ironically, it's an argument over religion. Which is supposed to be one of our freedoms, but here we are.
- Clubber 5y ago
  >I would argue the Civil War put the nail in the coffin of the Jeffersonian model. I would think the Civil War certainly started the move from Jeffersonian to Hamiltonian, but that is one of the oldest arguments of the design of the country (thus why each theory is given its father's name.). I think the pendulum moved back towards Jeffersonianism after reconstruction. I've heard the Civil War called essentially the prototype of the world wars, and I can see that. I feel WWI really started the movement back towards Hamtonianism with Wilson in earnest. It's been a long road though. >is the Right abhors Freedom I would argue both political parties abhor freedom, it's just different freedoms. To only see (or support) one party curtailing freedoms while ignoring the other really supports that system. Political parties weren't in the original design and cropped up as a power grab during Washington's administration. They've hijacked power ever since. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell...
  - taylodl 5y ago
    > I would argue both political parties abhor freedom Agree with you 100% there! It's just one of the parties claims to be the party of patriots and freedom - and they're not. Meanwhile, neither party can claim they're the party of freedom. As you pointed out, there are some freedoms each party supports and others they suppress. It just goes to show that freedom is still a terrifying concept to the political class!

endisneigh 5y ago

Yeah, exactly. Personally I think small states + active democracy is the way. Ultimately, freedom of movement plus observation of different modes of governance will force states to change or be abandoned. The government should apply a thin layer of rules to be followed, and otherwise let states do their own thing. In theory that's what we're already doing, but it's a matter of opinion.

taylodl 5y ago

I would argue the Civil War put the nail in the coffin of the Jeffersonian model. The 14th amendment buried the coffin. That's been over 150 years ago, in our "tween years" so to speak. The United States has spent the overwhelming majority of its lifetime under our current model. What I find ironic is the Right abhors Freedom - they don't like people having the freedom to marry whomever they want, they don't like people having the freedom to have sex with whomever they want, and they don't like people having the freedom to be whomever they want. Those are profound freedoms to argue so vehemently against. When you step back you realize it's not even a "small government" vs. "big government" thing - both sides want a big government. To me it appears the right wants a theocracy and the left wants a secular government. Which means, ironically, it's an argument over religion. Which is supposed to be one of our freedoms, but here we are.

Clubber 5y ago
>I would argue the Civil War put the nail in the coffin of the Jeffersonian model. I would think the Civil War certainly started the move from Jeffersonian to Hamiltonian, but that is one of the oldest arguments of the design of the country (thus why each theory is given its father's name.). I think the pendulum moved back towards Jeffersonianism after reconstruction. I've heard the Civil War called essentially the prototype of the world wars, and I can see that. I feel WWI really started the movement back towards Hamtonianism with Wilson in earnest. It's been a long road though. >is the Right abhors Freedom I would argue both political parties abhor freedom, it's just different freedoms. To only see (or support) one party curtailing freedoms while ignoring the other really supports that system. Political parties weren't in the original design and cropped up as a power grab during Washington's administration. They've hijacked power ever since. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell_Address https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington%27s_Farewell...
- taylodl 5y ago
  > I would argue both political parties abhor freedom Agree with you 100% there! It's just one of the parties claims to be the party of patriots and freedom - and they're not. Meanwhile, neither party can claim they're the party of freedom. As you pointed out, there are some freedoms each party supports and others they suppress. It just goes to show that freedom is still a terrifying concept to the political class!