4 ms·

The framers noted that the system was vulnerable to a single "faction" [1]. The solution was to have many competing factions. I think first-past-the-post, corpo

The framers noted that the system was vulnerable to a single "faction" [1]. The solution was to have many competing factions. I think first-past-the-post, corporate election influence, and mass media consolidated power into a single faction that ended up causing the system to break down (in that the branches don't seem to be checking each other's power right now). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

insane_dreamer 1y ago
The Founders would never have approved of Citizens United.
- rtpg 1y ago
  Sure they would have! The elite of the United States that lead the revolution were all extremely mercantile and many were coming to the colonies to run their own little fiefdoms away from the crown. One should acknowledge how many of the freedoms locked into the founding ideology of the US is pretty close to what libertarians reach out for. I don't know many libertarians arguing against Citizens United. That isn't to say that the US can't aim for something different, and that the core of the nation today likely believes many different things. We can choose our own destiny without trying to ascribe every good idea to what a group of people thought at the founding of the country.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 1y ago
  Yes they would have, for many of the same reasons the ACLU did [1]. [1] https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-and-citizens-united https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-and-citizens-united
  - techjamie 1y ago
    I'm probably being cynical, but I take their reasoning for opposition with a grain of salt when they themselves partake in lobbying. Removing it would hurt them, too. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-civil-liberties-union/lobbying?id=D000031473 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-civil-liberties-un...
  - insane_dreamer 1y ago
    Disagree. The founders were wary of business influence over politics. It’s one reason why state capitols were removed from commercial centers. And the ACLU was dead wrong on this.
adrr 1y ago
It didn’t help making senators directly elected. Makes them vulnerable to populists movements.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
freddie_mercury 1y ago
I don't think corporate election influence or mass media really have anything to do with it. The issue first showed up in 1828 election, when some of the Framers were still alive, and the US basically did nothing about it over the ensuing 200 years. Remember it was Andrew Jackson who went around ignoring Supreme Court decisions and saying "they made their decision, let's see them enforce it". And his abuse of executive powers during the Bank Wars to punish political enemies led to the formation of a new political party.
- buran77 1y ago
  > "they made their decision, let's see them enforce it" This was one lesson the common people never wanted to learn because it was so much easier to live on the belief that their system is intrinsically immune to abuse, it's just better, magically almost. It was bolstered by the same people's desire to feel better by pointing fingers at the "weak fools" living under dictatorships, incapable to fight. "We have rights and guns, we'll pick up arms and fight any abuse". But when the abuses came pouring almost everyone piffled, living on the next belief that time will fix things. Sometimes it did. Or maybe one of these times will bring the shocking realization that it's easy to talk big in good times and hard to act in bad times when your skin is in the game.
- QuantumGood 1y ago
  > I don't think corporate election influence or mass media had anything to do with it Always risky to allow the implication that money or propaganda isn't central to power/influence.
- gepardi 1y ago
  Dark Money has nothing to do with being able to consolidate power, gerrymander, and reduce the system to a two-party system whose members seem to be mostly under the influence of their own desire for gain? Which brings us back to the money…
  - throwawayqqq11 1y ago
    Are you kidding? No other democracy spends this much on campaigns. https://theconversation.com/the-scale-of-us-election-spending-explained-in-five-graphs-130651 https://theconversation.com/the-scale-of-us-election-spendin... Would you like to argue money has no influence on political outcomes? Please go ahead.
thaumasiotes 1y ago
> The framers noted that the system was vulnerable to a single "faction" [1]. That was hundreds of years ago; when Madison says "domestic faction", he doesn't mean "a faction", he means what we would today call "factionalism". The 18th-century use is a pretty direct mirror of the Latin word factio, also meaning factionalism. The idea that "checks and balances" are built into the US governmental structure is interesting. It would make sense if governmental positions were held by right of heredity. They aren't, but you can see how the Framers would be working with that mental model. As the US government is actually constructed, Congressmen, for example, have no incentives to preserve anything as a power exclusive to Congress, because they have no lasting affiliation with Congress.
bmitc 1y ago
It turns out that people were right about capitalism and its sinister dangers.

insane_dreamer 1y ago

The Founders would never have approved of Citizens United.

rtpg 1y ago
Sure they would have! The elite of the United States that lead the revolution were all extremely mercantile and many were coming to the colonies to run their own little fiefdoms away from the crown. One should acknowledge how many of the freedoms locked into the founding ideology of the US is pretty close to what libertarians reach out for. I don't know many libertarians arguing against Citizens United. That isn't to say that the US can't aim for something different, and that the core of the nation today likely believes many different things. We can choose our own destiny without trying to ascribe every good idea to what a group of people thought at the founding of the country.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
tzs 1y ago
Yes they would have, for many of the same reasons the ACLU did [1]. [1] https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-and-citizens-united https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-and-citizens-united
- techjamie 1y ago
  I'm probably being cynical, but I take their reasoning for opposition with a grain of salt when they themselves partake in lobbying. Removing it would hurt them, too. https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-civil-liberties-union/lobbying?id=D000031473 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-civil-liberties-un...
- insane_dreamer 1y ago
  Disagree. The founders were wary of business influence over politics. It’s one reason why state capitols were removed from commercial centers. And the ACLU was dead wrong on this.

adrr 1y ago

It didn’t help making senators directly elected. Makes them vulnerable to populists movements.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

freddie_mercury 1y ago

I don't think corporate election influence or mass media really have anything to do with it. The issue first showed up in 1828 election, when some of the Framers were still alive, and the US basically did nothing about it over the ensuing 200 years. Remember it was Andrew Jackson who went around ignoring Supreme Court decisions and saying "they made their decision, let's see them enforce it". And his abuse of executive powers during the Bank Wars to punish political enemies led to the formation of a new political party.

buran77 1y ago
> "they made their decision, let's see them enforce it" This was one lesson the common people never wanted to learn because it was so much easier to live on the belief that their system is intrinsically immune to abuse, it's just better, magically almost. It was bolstered by the same people's desire to feel better by pointing fingers at the "weak fools" living under dictatorships, incapable to fight. "We have rights and guns, we'll pick up arms and fight any abuse". But when the abuses came pouring almost everyone piffled, living on the next belief that time will fix things. Sometimes it did. Or maybe one of these times will bring the shocking realization that it's easy to talk big in good times and hard to act in bad times when your skin is in the game.
QuantumGood 1y ago
> I don't think corporate election influence or mass media had anything to do with it Always risky to allow the implication that money or propaganda isn't central to power/influence.
gepardi 1y ago
Dark Money has nothing to do with being able to consolidate power, gerrymander, and reduce the system to a two-party system whose members seem to be mostly under the influence of their own desire for gain? Which brings us back to the money…
- throwawayqqq11 1y ago
  Are you kidding? No other democracy spends this much on campaigns. https://theconversation.com/the-scale-of-us-election-spending-explained-in-five-graphs-130651 https://theconversation.com/the-scale-of-us-election-spendin... Would you like to argue money has no influence on political outcomes? Please go ahead.

thaumasiotes 1y ago

> The framers noted that the system was vulnerable to a single "faction" [1]. That was hundreds of years ago; when Madison says "domestic faction", he doesn't mean "a faction", he means what we would today call "factionalism". The 18th-century use is a pretty direct mirror of the Latin word factio, also meaning factionalism. The idea that "checks and balances" are built into the US governmental structure is interesting. It would make sense if governmental positions were held by right of heredity. They aren't, but you can see how the Framers would be working with that mental model. As the US government is actually constructed, Congressmen, for example, have no incentives to preserve anything as a power exclusive to Congress, because they have no lasting affiliation with Congress.

bmitc 1y ago

It turns out that people were right about capitalism and its sinister dangers.