* * *

The “destruction of distance” through modern transportation and communications (and with increases in global trade) is real — I'm probably more familiar with it than most or all on here — but that's no excuse for ignoring the system arranged by our Constitution instead of amending it to actually _make_ it “up to date” and thereby make so much of what's now done _legitimate_ — for a change.

There's nothing wrong with having the President (and Vice President) selected by the fifty governors (ideally through an approval vote), and possibly letting the President appoint the Vice President, as an alternative to the Electoral College or to direct election. As far as election of Senators and the activist rulings that made most upper state houses illegal but not the US Senate, that was also far from ideal (or even proper).

In the colonial times, there were fairly onerous property requirements for the right to voter. There were also often religious requirements.

Since the Revolution itself was about fair elective representation in government, these came to be seen as very hypocritical. I think that by Washington's first election (or maybe it was his second), religious requirements had ended and voters (all male, of course) just had to be taxpayers. The linked article indicates that it wasn't until 1860 that universal manhood suffrage really became universal. If I remember it correctly, though, by the election of 1826 (won by that proto-populist, Andrew Jackson), universal manhood suffrage was commonplace.

I think in some ways populist movements arise because because elites (I went there!) have suppressed the desires of the unwashed masses (I went there, too!) for too long on some constellation of topics.

Populist movements produce a variety of results. Sometimes excellent results (the 19th Amendment granting women the vote). Sometimes common-sensical results (the 17th Amendment made for direct election of Senators, and I don't see why having Senators elected instead by State Legislatures isn't an unconsionable abridgement of popular sentiment). Somethimes surprisingly responsible results (the 16th Amendment allowing federal income tax). But sometimes terrible results (the 19th Amendment prohibiting alcohol–it's utterly astonishing how much political energy the temperance movement motivated in the nineteenth century, all for a phyrric victory, now long forgotten).

It seems to me that the passage of the Constitution was a triumph of elites over the unwashed, though the gradual extension of the right to vote has placed popularity over elitism.

To that extent, I think the Founding Fathers would be very surprised at our modern political culture–and maybe not too happy. I imagine Thomas Paine and maybe Sam Adams would like it. And I think that ultimate elitist (the wealthiest man of his time) George Washington would probably grow to find it adequate (as the biggest celebrity of his time, he'd appreciate the wisdom of popularity contests).

I hope this is the sort of thing you were looking for, Polimom.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/unequalprotection/p...

The early 20th Century brought the first real push for worker's rights and the recognition of the rights of common folk in this country. For the first time the middle class had a real voice and they wanted it to be heard.

This wasn't happening just in the United States. It was happening across the globe. The rise of Socialism and Communism was taking root due to the new found power of the worker.

That era's populism was driven by the realization by the workers that they could get more by organizing and leveraging their power as a group, be that a labor group or a political group.

Today's populism is born partly due to the explosion of information that has come about because of the Internet. People no longer are beholden to a select group of media and politicians for information. It's giving rise to a more educated voter but not necessarily a wiser one.

I'm not sure I can differentiate between the interests of a state and those of its citizens. Before direct elections took place the state legislatures were certainly tied closer with the Federal government, and that may have contributed to the original idea since it would assist ratification of the Constitutiion and state support of other Federal actions. The system had problems though, primarily in dealing with deadlocks in the legislatures that caused delays in sending Senators to D.C., along the constant charges of bribery and corruption that were common and occasionally true.

There certainly are different advantages and disadvantages to the two systems. I tend to side with giving the rabble the power.

That's exactly how I understand them. I haven't spent much time, though, pulling apart the Federalist factions.

Moving to a different time-frame, though: the era that gave rise to a lot of the changes outlined above — and in particular the 16th and 17th Amendments — was a very populist era. I'm seeing quite a large trend toward populism currently, and that's part of what's sparked my introspection.

The Anti-Federalists weren't simply pro-states rights. They were predominantly anti-Constitution. They felt the Articles of Confederation were just dandy and there was little need to change them and certainly not in a way that would give the central government any meaningful power.

They shouldn't be confused with guys like Mason, or Patterson, or Gerry that had real concerns with the Constitution but were generally in favor of the Constitution.

It is hard to place a singular perspective on the Federalists. At the very least they broke down into 2 main groups, the Hamilton and Adams wings. The Hamilitonians, which included Rufus Kings, Rush, and Governeur Morris, were decidedly pro-central government. The Adams wing wasn't as devout on the issue but still believed in a much stronger central government than did the Republicans.

This is, of course, the problem when talking about the “founding fathers”. There were very few unified positions among them. Opposition to English rule probably being the only absolute one.

People today simply pick the founding father that best fits their agenda and uses him as the spokesperson for all things 18th century.

For some reason I didn't know that Madison was both one the main Federalists and later helped Jefferson form his party.

Maybe I'm slightly confused because I'm talking about Anti-Federalist concerns (which the Democratic-Republicans shared a lot of) while they explicitly did not support the Constitution (which Jefferson did). Is that apt? Like “Federalist” meant supporting ratification at one point and later meant a political party…so it's possible to be both Federalist at one point and not at another.

Also while htey obviously disagreed about a lot, I'm not sure the Federalists (the party) would like how strong the executive has become or how much the Federal government regulates intra-state matters. I was under the impression that the Federalists were just a lot larger proponents of being able to have say in foreign contracts and such rather than having it be at the state level, not necessarily that they could tell a state that they couldn't grow certain things like they do now.

While there were certainly issues they largely agreed upon there were many that were hotly contested. The Federalists were, by and large, anti-slavery. The Republicans were pro-slavery. This was a big issue for both sides and could have doomed the nascent republic.

Politically the Federalists were a loosely organized group of people who generally disliked organized political parties(an attitude that would eventually lead to their doom) while the Repiblicans embraced party politics and used it to gain power.

Economically the Federalists believed in establishing credit, and debt, for the Federal government as well as imposing excise taxes on various goods to increase Federal revenue. The Republicans opposed both and believed that the Federal government should be kept weak at all costs.

The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were a bit of a different group of people. Madison and Jefferson were Federalists whereas most of the anti-Federalists were guys that wound up with little influence in the government after the Constitution was ratified. George Clinton and Patrick Henry made a lot of noise but they lost and wound up having little impact on how the government turned out.

On the other hand States' Rights has a different meaning now than it did then so I'm not even sure what the Anti-Federalists would think about that.

The two party system, which had reared its ugly very shortly after the ink dried on the Constitution, was something they initially had not wanted. I think they would be sickened at the way their early factions wound up carving up power and influence throughout all the levels of government, throwing off the system of checks and balances that was critical to a well-functioning federal republic. If they could observe the political machinations on either side of the aisle today, perhaps they'd consider embracing the two-party system as unavoidable & they'd go back in time having taken into account its detractions and limitations and worked on controlling the potential for abuse; perhaps they would have banned it outright.

Further, I think they would be overwhelmed with the sheer size of the country, the number of people in it today and the laziness & reluctance of many of its citizens when it comes to learning about & participating actively in the democratic process. Especially given the fact that African-Americans and women can now vote, the number of people participating in electing government officials at all levels has dramatically changed since they established electoral processes designed to guarantee that equal representation be maintained in the legislature and elections' outcomes be determined by counting the votes of the whole country, not just large population centers. I believe they would have a hard time coming to terms with the sheer number of eligible voters in the country, and after having wrapped their heads around the idea of women and black voters, would begin burning effigies of dirty dirty officials drawing random re-districting lines around tracts of like-minded constituents to lump and consolidate their powerbases at a whim. Tsk tsk.

Most shocking to them, though, would probably be the events leading up to, causing and resulting from the Civil War, including the severe curtailing of states' rights, the eventual ratification of the 16th amendment on income tax and the resulting overwhelming powershift away from states in favor of the federal government. The federal government holds far too much of the power, weakening state and local governments. Why? Because federal income tax feeds a giant bureaucracy which hordes money and then trades it back to states in return for giving up their rights and subjugating themselves to federal regulations, restrictions and standards. Furthermore, the ghastliness of the Civil War has virtually erased the idea of states having the recourse of secession. The Founding Fathers probably never dreamed secession would happen so soon. I would be most interested to know what they would change in the Constitution to offer states a different yet effective recourse in fighting the federal government's encroachment on their rights (if that is even possible), or whether they would find some of the amendments to the Constitution as incompatible with the ideals of federal government AND strong individual states.

On one hand I believe that one of government's important functions is to ensure equal political and domestic rights for its citizens, and that things like voting and familial matters are sacrosanct. (Not only do I support voting rights for felons, but think that people should be able to setup whatever legalized family structure they want)

Obviously the states have done a terrible job with that and Federal Government interference has helped some — although I'm somewhat sympathetic to the libertarian-federalist argument that people could just move to where they were treated properly.

Also without a doubt, we would not be a superpower without immense central government powers.

Of course on the other hand it also creates widespread policies that aren't necessarily appropriate for all states. It's also made centralized a lot of waste and made it easier to be irresponsible.

On the other hand some states used to be really corrupt cesspools and there are very ugly incidents in American history of state governments doing awful things. The Colorado national guard gunning down striking workers is an especially chilling example especially as they were being funded by a corporation at that point.

I think it's a constant struggle.

Jefferson, Madison and the rest of the Republicans would likely be appalled by what this nation has become. They greatly distrusted central power. They would, however, have likely enjoyed the greater voice of the voters today.

Hamilton and Washington and the rest of the Federalists would likely be happy to see that we have a strong central government ruling over a largely unified American people. They would likely not likely the greater rule of the “mob”.

The debate between central power against state power has been waged since 1783. The notion that they all uniformly supported strong state rights to central power is a misnomer.

Part of their vision has been lost because their world has been lost. On a vacation a few years back I took my personal vehicle and traveled from Kansas City to San Francisco, driving through Kansas, Colorado, Utah and Nevada. I then went down the West Coast to Los Angeles and back home through Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Oklahoma. All in a matter of a bit over two weeks not a matter of months. I do not personally know anyone involved in agriculture. I use electricity drawn over multiple state lines. The food on my table is only partly grown in this country and no one could tell you how much of it is from nearby though I live in the middle of a huge agricultural region. So much has changed that the founding father's vision, if implemented as they saw it would bring our nation crashing downj.