FOUNDER-CHIC

On Election Hiatus

2008-04-26T13:46:00.003-05:00

Dear Fellow Founder-Stalkers,

We noticed that our posts were more and more frequently about the 2008 Presidential election and less and less about proper founder stalking, so we joined a group blog that allows us to discuss more modern-day issues without sullying our reputation as an unimpeachable founder-stalker. We shall resume founder stalking after the election, or whenever we feel like it.

Please read Political Cotton Candy for now.

And don't cry darlings, we'll be back soon.

Besitos,
M.O.W.

Did You Hear That Obama Actually Won Texass? We Wonder Why Not?

2008-03-12T12:11:00.004-05:00

Dear Fellow Founder Stalkers,

Behold, the CNN Election Center Results for Texass' March 4, 2008 Primary AND Caucus. As you know the Texass Two-Step allocates 2/3 of the state's delegates for the primary vote and 1/3 for the caucus vote. Texass has (sortof) finally finished counting up the day's votes and Senator Obama has emerged victorious!

Senator Obama 99

Senator Clinton 94

We have not seen this much reported in the news, so we thought that we would draw your attention to these facts. Enjoy!

Bush-Clinton Oligarchy

2008-03-07T10:46:00.006-06:00

Dear Founder-Stalkers,

Have you ever thought about the fact that from 1988 to 2008 the President of the United States has been named either Bush or Clinton? That is twenty years of two families dominating the presidency--twenty years! Let's look at the definition of an oligarchy, shall we?

Oligarchy (Greek Ὀλιγαρχία, Oligarkhía) is a form of government where political power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society (whether distinguished by wealth, family or military powers). The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for "few" (ὀλίγον óligon) and "rule" (ἄρχω arkho). Compare with autocracy (rule by one person) and democracy (rule by the majority).

Yes, dear Founder-Stalkers, there are important differences between an oligarchy and a democracy. When the same two families dominate the presidency, then we can say that our political system is the rule of the few, not the rule of the majority. With the presidency controlled by two families and with the consolidation of political power into the Executive Branch that we've seen over the past twenty years, our government has become less majority rule and more oligarchic rule. For the past twenty years--a generation--we have allowed the same two families to control our government. If we saw another nation allow two families to dominate their politics, then we would not hasten to call that nation an oligarchy. But, when we look at ourselves we somehow still think that we still live in a democracy. How strange, we think. Of course, we know that many of our leaders have been born to privilege and have been somehow distant relations, but we believe that our current oligarchy is different in kind and we fear the effects of an entire generation (current college students were born between 1986-1990) that knows no other president than either Bush or Clinton.

Many of the Founders were concerned with the question of how to limit political family dynasties. GW was the perfect choice to be our first president many argued, in part, because he did not have a son and thus would not be allowed to set up a hereditary president-monarchy. John Adams was feared on account of his politically active son, JQA, and the family was often tarred with the "monarchist" label by politicians of both the first and the second generations. Since the Adamses we've had other important political dynasties--the Harrisons, the Roosevelts, and the Kennedys--but, none of these family members ruled back to back like we've had recently. In fact, we've not had two families so completely dominate American politics since the Hutchinsons and the Olivers divided all of Massachusetts Bay Colony's political offices between them--and, we know what happened to them.

Tommy wrote a letter to Gerrymander on January 26, 1799 when he was hoping to become president that pretty well sums up his political principles and pointedly denounces hereditary office holding:

I do then, with sincere zeal, wish an inviolable preservation of our present federal constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the States, that in which it was advocated by it's friends, & not that which it's enemies apprehended, who therefore became it's enemies; and I am opposed to the monarchising it's features by the forms of it's administration, with a view to conciliate a first transition to a President & Senate for life, & from that to a hereditary tenure of these offices, & thus to worm out the elective principle.

We understand that Senator Clinton, and indeed one day Chelsea Clinton and Jenna and Barbara Bush, have the right to run for president under our Constitution. We understand further that if the people choose them, then these Clintons and Bushs are justly the President of the United States. We just wonder if this kind of oligarchy is really in the best interest of the nation.

M.O.W. believes that when Senator Obama argues that Senator Clinton represents "politics as usual," that this might be a part of what he means.

What say you, Founder-Stalkers?

more at twiigs.com...

M.O.W. Causes Controversy!

2008-03-06T11:00:00.005-06:00

Dear Founder-Stalkers,

Our last post on our experience at the Texass Two-Step and our reflections upon Senator Clinton's negative campaign strategy, which we called the "politics of alienation," has caused quite a stir over at The Rhetorical Situation. We are trying mightily to come up with something clever to say in response to all of their important points, but in the meanwhile, we thought that you might enjoy listening in/being a part of the conversation.

P.S. Our dear friend forwarded us the above picture as a t-shirt for sale around the interwebs. We found it very wrong, obviously, but yet kinda funny, and perhaps apropos to this post in an earnestly ironic kinda way. Please don't hate on us.

Obama Beats Hillary on Patriotism

2008-03-05T09:45:00.009-06:00

M.O.W. voted twice for Senator Obama yesterday. The first time we used one of those new-fangled electrified machines and the second time we signed our name to a list. We have to admit that we had never caucused before now--we are relatively new to Texass, after all. We found the caucus slightly disorganized, but we believe that it only appeared disorganized because most of the people there had also never been to a caucus before and we none of us quite knew what we were doing. Thankfully there were a handful of folks there who had been doing the Texass Two Step seemingly for decades and they kept things organized.

We waited in line outside of our polling place and Founder-stalked for a while (was Jimmy Buck really the worst president or has GWB out done him in suckyness, we wondered and discussed with our line colleagues), then we filed into our church polling place (most polling places seem to be churches in Texass, they being in such abundance) and stood around for a while. There was an awkward moment when the dozen or so Republicans outted themselves and were asked to hold their caucus elsewhere. Then once the Republicans had removed to another location we Democrats got in line to sign our name and declare our candidate. After so doing the votes were counted (and witnessed by second parties--no shenanigans here!) before the Chair made his announcement:

SENATOR OBAMA WON OUR PRECINCT! Hooray!!

Now we divide up Clinton supporters on one side and Obama on the other and we elect our County Delegates (M.O.W. is proud to say that we will represent Senator Obama at our county convention later this month--step one in our master plan to get to go to the DNC). After a few resolutions were proffered from the floor and many handshakes and congratulations were exchanged we Democrats parted the scene to watch how the rest of the state(s) voted in their own precincts.

As you would expect, M.O.W. enjoyed our time at our caucus. We love being among the politically active people. We love when old, young, white, black, brown, rich, and poor come together to act politically. We saw that they who caucused were respectful of one another, interested in politics, hopeful for the future, angry about the past. We talked, laughed, stood, and sat together. We acted together to make decisions.

We formed a community last night--however briefly--and we knew it.

We shared a lot of information and opinions. We talked, in particular, about why we supported Senator Obama and how we felt when we were told that we were mere members of a herd that did not know rhetoric from reality. As you can imagine, our fellow caucus members were a wee bit sensitive about this question.

Once we returned home and turned on the news M.O.W. quickly lost the afterglow of our political community building experience. 3 AM phone calls. All rhetoric. Unprepared. No plan. Meetings in Canada. Ug. It seems as though HRC would win Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texass and that she would do so by nasty and negative invective against our hero.

After our experience at the Texass caucus we wonder about the wisdom of HRC's choice to try to win the Democratic nominee at all costs. As we have already discussed, rhetoric is nothing more than a tool of language; rhetoric binds a community together; rhetoric allows us to avoid violence. They who critique rhetoric are really critiquing the people because they are implicitly arguing that the people do not know right from wrong, true from false. They who critique rhetoric presume that the speaker is a manipulator and that the audience has been easily manipulated. The good folks that we spoke to at the caucus last night were very aware that the criticisms of Senator Obama's rhetoric were actually criticisms of them and they were hurt by them. They defended their choice, they defended their right to choose, they defended their judgement.

Senator Clinton's attacks on Senator Obama put the citizens on the defensive as much as they put Senator Obama on the defensive.

And M.O.W. wonders at what cost? Senator Clinton is squandering the peoples' opportunity to unite the nation and re-invigorate the political process and she is so doing for her own benefit at the expense of the people and the nation. We would remind you, dear founder-stalkers, of the founders' original understanding of patriotism. According to Henry St John Bolingbroke, from whom the founders learned about patriotism, a true patriot would defend the the peoples' liberty by defending the constitution, would reject party and faction, and would seek to unite the nation behind one vision so that all could work toward the common good. The patriot did not do any of this for her own benefit--we must never seek power for our own sake--but, rather the patriot acts for the good of the people.

We ask, dear fellow founder stalkers, by these criteria who is the patriot? We believe that it is clear that Senator Obama alone possesses true patriotism. One candidate is a war hero, yes, but that is not the same as being a partriot by Bolingbroke's (or the founders') standard. Another candidate is a party hack, a policy wonk, who claims that her experience with her party gives her the credibility that Senator Obama lacks. Senator Clinton is mistaken. Her experience makes her a part of the problem, not the solution. The true patriot rejects party in order to unite, Senator Clinton embraces party in order to divide.

And divide she will if she continues these attacks on Senator Obama and the people. She cannot divide Senator Obama from his supporters without alienating them from the political process. Alienated voters do not vote. If Senator Clinton thinks that she will defeat Obama with negativity in the primary and then re-gather together his constituency to support her in November, then she is seriously misguided.

Alienated voters do not vote. And Senator Clinton is practising the politics of alienation.

As we witnessed in our conversations at the caucus last night the people are very aware that they are being insulted by Senator Clinton, the media, and the Republican Party (this is the company you keep Senator Clinton?). They are tired of politics as usual. They want to believe that we can make a difference in politics and improve all of our lives. Calling the people stupid followers of empty rhetoric is a failing strategy because it will only alienate those Americans who are excited about politics for the first time in a long while.

All of the pundits last night urged Senator Obama to find a way to respond to Senator Clinton's attacks while still staying on message as the uniting candidate who stands for hope, change, empowering the people, and the end of politics as usual. M.O.W. believes that his strategy is clear:

Senator Obama must draw from the founders' understanding of patriotism to win this election.

Senator Obama already behaves as Bolingbroke described the Patriot. He already seeks to protect the people's liberty by defending the constitution, he already rejects party and faction, he already seeks to unite the nation for the common good. He needs to stay on message and be more clear about why Senator Clinton is NOT a Patriot and why her attacks on him only prove precisely how far away she is from the founder's ideal of patriotism. In other words, Senator Clinton's negativity needs to be turned against her to show that it is precisely the thing that makes her unworthy of our trust.

Senator Clinton stands for politics as usual, Senator Obama stands for patriotism.

Yes, We Can! Obama Sounds Like Populist, Does NOT Use the D-Word

2008-02-20T10:03:00.012-06:00

Last night we were very fortunate to attend the political rally/ Wisconsin Primary Victory Speech of Senator Barack Obama. M.O.W. sat alongside 19,000 chanting, cheering, waving Texans and we can confirm that any report that you might have heard of the junior Senator's rock star appeal with the people is true. What is more interesting in this era of pseudo-events and faked for tv emotion is that M.O.W. observed that the people's love for Obama was decidedly genuine, and not just made for tv.

The People Love Obama. Let's see why, shall we?

1. His Populist Message:

The first reason why the people love Obama is because, as you can tell as you listen to his speech above, Senator Obama loves the people. Obama is for healthcare--just as good as his as Senator--that everyone can afford. Obama is for raising the minimum wage so that Americans who work are not poor. Obama is for ending the Iraq War because those soldiers who are giving their all for America deserve America to give its all to them. Obama is for lowering taxes on the lower & middle classes and raising them on the wealthy. Obama wants you and your children to be healthy. He wants your kids to get a good education--and he wants them to do some service work in exchange for college tuition money. He wants the rich to pay their fair share of taxes. He wants to improve your standard of living. He wants to get the nation out of a war that is killing your kids and making the world that they will inherent less safe.

Yes, indeed, fellow Founder stalkers, Senator Obama wants all of these things for you. He does not want the presidency because he wants power for himself. No, he wants the presidency because he wants to empower you. Furthermore, Senator Obama wants you to act to make these changes. As you know dear Founder stalkers, we care very much about whether our leaders desire power for its own sake or whether they desire power so that they can do something good for the people. We believe that Senator Obama desires power for the very best possible reason: to give the people the chance to make this country the kind of country that they want it to be.

Let's just listen to what he said and try to believe--we know that it is hard--that Senator Obama is earnest, and try to meet him half way by dropping a wee bit of our own ironic distance:

"I was convinced, most of all, that change in America does not happen from the top down. It happens from the bottom up."

"I am here to report that my bet has paid off and my faith in the American people has been vindicated, because all across the country, people are standing up and saying, "It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in American history. We want to move forward into a better tomorrow."

"We'll invest in you; you invest in America. Together, we will march this country forward."

That my friends, is what good old fashioned American populism sounds like. His message is that we've got problems, but they are problems that we can solve if we all do this together. The catch is that he wants you, you the people, to solve the problems. He will lead, of course, but Senator Obama seems to believe that the people should be empowered to act to solve America's problems themselves. Yes, we can.

2. His Rhetorical Style

Senator Obama has been criticized for his popularity with the people and for his rhetorical abilities. We find these criticisms predictable and absurd. For who would criticize a presidential candidate for being popular with the people except for someone who did not trust the people to know who or what they should like? In other words, Obama is accused of being a demagogue by those who do not like the people or believe that the people are capable of judging for themselves. We say we see you to those who would find fault with a popular candidate merely because s/he is popular. That kind of circular reasoning leads back to elitism on the part of they who hurl the abuse in the first place.

The second criticism--that Senator Obama is merely a good speaker and that his speeches are "empty rhetoric"--follows from the elitism of the first criticism. If you do not trust the people to make good decisions, then you must believe that the demagogue is able to control the people easily with his words. In this view of rhetoric--found in Plato, among others--rhetoric is a kind of trickery or a drug that enables demagogues to control the people against their will. Rhetoric is inherently bad; the people are inherently stupid; and the demagogue is inherently power hungry.

Yet, this view of rhetoric and the people cannot withstand scrutiny. Rhetoric is a tool, nothing more or less. We use rhetoric everyday in everything that we do and say. We cannot escape rhetoric, it is everywhere, everything. Nor should we want to escape rhetoric. For it is only by rhetoric that human beings can live together in groups. We persuade one another and that allows us to avoid violence. Rhetoric itself is not violence. Of course, there is good rhetoric and bad rhetoric--we have seen much rhetrickery over the last seven years--but we cannot assume that merely because a presidential candidate is popular, that s/he is a demagogue and that their rhetoric is rhetrickery. To do so is sloppy thinking and belies our hatred of the people.

Last night's speech was full of the kinds of stylistic devices that others have noted as characteristic of his style in general: parallelism, chiasmus, antithesis, anaphora. As Aristotle would recommend, Senator Obama argued by example and by enthymeme. In short, it was a well crafted speech and the crowd in Houston went bananas for it.

And it is no wonder that they did for Senator Obama's rhetorical style mimics the populism of his message. Each of these stylistic devices is meant to bring your audience into your speech, to allow them to participate in the rhetorical moment by prompting them to finish your thought, to follow your pattern, to engage in your speech not just as a mere spectator, but as a co-creator of the speech itself. Yes, we can!

In short, just as Obama has promised to empower Americans to act, he delivers speeches that empower his audience to think and act with him. No wonder other politicians are scared of his rhetoric. When a speaker's message and their rhetorical style are so completely in sync and when both promise to empower the people, then it might mean that the speaker actually means what s/he says. Senator Obama sounds like a populist, acts like a populist and populism is very, very scary to some politicians.

3. His Humble Confidence

Senator Obama's populist rhetoric is supported by his humbly confident leadership. As our fellow Founder stalkers well know, the Founding generation took great care to appear to be from the people--think of Tommy's expansive mansion that was cleverly designed to appear like a fairly typical middle class home from the outside or GW's constant concern over whether or not it appeared that he was power hungry and whether or not history would portray him as the American Cincinnatus. Likewise, Senator Obama presents himself as a man of the people who feels the call of duty:

"And I had to explain to them I'm not running because of some long-held ambition...I'm not running because I think it's somehow owed to me. I'm running because of what Dr. King called the fierce urgency of now, the fierce urgency of now."

"The American people have spoken out, and they are saying we need to move in a new direction. And I would not be running, as aware as I am of my imperfections, as clear as I am that I am not a perfect vessel, I would not be running if I did not believe that I could lead this country in that new direction, that we have a unique moment that we have to seize. But I have to tell you, Houston, I can't do it by myself. No president can. Remember: Change doesn't happen from the top. It happens because of you."

"You know, I was born to a teenage mother. My father left when I was 2. So I was raised by a single mom and my grandparents. And they didn't have money, and they didn't have fame. What they could give me was love, they gave me an education, and they gave me hope.

And so I talk about hope. I put "hope" on my signs. I gave a speech in Boston at the convention about hope. I wrote a book called "The Audacity of Hope."

But now some are suggesting that I must be naive, that if you talk about hope it means that you're fuzzy-headed, you're not realistic, you're peddling in false hopes, you need a reality check. The implication is, is that if you talk about hope that you must be passive and you're just waiting for good things to happen, and you don't realize how mean and tough the world can be. But understand that's not what hope is.

Hope is not blind optimism. Hope is not ignoring or being ignorant of the challenges that stand between you and your dreams. I know how difficult it will be to provide health insurance to every American. If it was easy, it would have already been done. I know how hard it will be to change our energy policy, because the status quo serves many powerful people. I know how hard it will be to alleviate poverty that has built up over centuries, how hard it will be to fix schools, because changing our schools will require not just money, but a change in attitudes. We're going to have to parent better, and turn off the television set, and put the video games away, and instill a sense of excellence in our children, and that's going to take some time.

I know how easy it is for politicians to turn us on each other, to use immigrants or gay people or folks who aren't like us as scapegoats for what they do. But I also know this. I know this because I have fought on the streets as an organizer, I have fought in the courts as a civil rights attorney, I have fought in the legislature, and I've won some battles, but I've also lost some, because good intentions aren't always enough. They have to be fortified by political will and political power. But I also know this, Houston: that nothing worthwhile in this country has ever happened except somebody somewhere was willing to hope."

In other words, Senator Obama was not born a member of the elite. He really is a man of the people and while he recognizes that he isn't perfect, he feels the call of duty to try to do his best to lead this country through the changes that must come if we are to improve our economy, our enviroment, our healthcare, our energy policy, and our relationships with the rest of the world. Senator Obama admits that he is not perfect--he is humble--but, he knows that he can lead Americans. Yes, he can.

Founder-Chic Bonus Analysis:

We would like to note one more thing about Senator Barack Obama's populism: Senator Obama somehow managed to give an entire speech in which he advocated for the power of the people without using the word democracy at all. As we have noted here on many occasions dear fellow Founder stalkers, America's political discourse is full of the political elite making "democratic" appeals to our desire to control the government. They often promise us power and call it democracy, but democracy is a lie. The elite have always used democratic rhetoric against us; they have used our desire to control the government to control us.

Thus, what could it mean that Senator Obama delivered a populist speech without relying on the democratic fiction? We believe, we hope, that it means that Senator Obama actually means what he says and that he actually does desire to empower the people.

"That's what hope is. That's what hope is, imagining, and then fighting for, and then working for, struggling for what did not seem possible before...It will not be easy. But at some point in our lives, we all have to decide, as hard as it's going to be, we are going to join together, lock arms, and go about the difficult but noble task of remaking this nation, block by block, county by county, state by state. Houston, this is our moment. This is our time."

Yes, we can!

Thank you Anonymous!

2008-02-16T18:23:00.003-06:00

We've just recieved the following from Founder-Chic reader Anonymous:

"You are so completeley backwards! The atempted COUP D' ETAT of 2000 by the democrat (democratic) party was disgusting. Recount after recount and change the criteria was bad enough,but, they had 52,000 military votes thrown out because of a technicality that was already accepted by florida. Hanging chads were not. You dems crossed the line, and, as usual, point your finger at the right. The right may not have the media on thier side to spread lies, but, they do have the spirit of our founding fathers. No matter how hard you try to pervert history on this web-site, the leftist tyranny you promote will never take hold."

It is our first hate mail and we could not be prouder! Thank you Anonymous for taking the time out of your busy day to clarify that only "the right" has the "spirit of our founding fathers" on their side. We "pervert history" on this website, we sure do! And, we spread the "leftist tyranny" far and wide, you caught us!

Bravo, well played Anonymous! You are a real American hero.

Kisses,

M.O.W.

Bush Calls Out "Purveyors of False Populism," M.O.W. Thinks "Oh, the Irony!"

2008-01-29T09:04:00.000-06:00

Like many of you, we watched President Bush give his last State of the Union last night. We found it amusing that Mr. Bush seems to think that everything is going just great, mostly, and if only Congress will pass his magic bullet stimulus package without delay and if they will only stop putting earmarks on all of the really awesome bills that he wants passed, then everything would be just perfect.

M.O.W. would like to be clear that she has hated, continues to hate, and will forever hate George W. Bush--both the man and the presidency. She can't even look at his smirking little face without getting very, very angry. Indeed, we believe that he is a criminal who belongs in jail. Our hatred is almost enough to make us say something unpleasant.

We have many reasons for opposing Mr. Bush, but our top five are:

1. Complicity in stealing the 2000 election.

2. Getting America into a holy war for oil.

3. Consolidating power in the Executive Branch and perverting the Constitution for his own gain.

4. Failure to recognize and solve the problems with the war, the economy, health care, the environment, etc.

5. His false populism.

Our dear friend Stirling Newberry has an excellent post along these lines over at the Agonist today, and we would not like to repeat what has already been said so well by him, but we would like to focus a little on our number 5--Bush's false populism--especially as it was evident in last night's SOTUS.

Last night President Bush offered a rousing justification for the actions of government:

"As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. And so in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free peoples to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives for their futures."

Yes! How could we not say yes! to this Mr. Bush? Indeed, Americans are nominally empowered to make wise decisions and improve the future, but we say, what are you doing to empower the people to make decisions and improve the future? You know very well that you have not, you are not, and that you shall not empower the people in anyway. In fact, you know that you have run a presidency designed to empower you at the expense of the people. In fact, your championing the power of the people here is merely "eulogistic covering"--as Kenneth Burke would have called it--for you to hide behind in order to advocate for your own agenda, which has very little to do with empowering the people to improve the future and has much to do with you handing out gifts and graff for your preferred constituencies: churches, corporations, and rich folks.

You do not care about empowering the people Mr. Bush, admit it.

Yet, the front half of your speech and your conclusion were riddled with such talk of trusting and empowering the people. Indeed, you only did not "trust the people" when you spoke of Social Security, Immigration, and your War on Terror. Each instance when you did "trust the people," you used your supposed trust of the people to advocate for your pet projects, which benefit not the people, but churches, corporations, and rich folks.

For, example:

"We must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy."
"On housing, we must trust Americans with the responsibility of homeownership and empower them to weather turbulent times in the housing market."
"We must trust patients and doctors to make medical decisions and empower them with better information and better options."
"On education, we must trust students to learn if given the chance, and empower parents to demand results from our schools."
"On trade, we must trust American workers to compete with anyone in the world and empower them by opening up new markets overseas."
"We must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology."
"We must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow."
"We must trust in the innovative spirit of medical researchers and empower them to discover new treatments while respecting moral boundaries."
"We must trust in the wisdom of our founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says."
"We must trust in the good heart of the American people and empower them to serve their neighbors in need."
"The strength -- the secret of our strength, the miracle of America, is that our greatness lies not in our government, but in the spirit and determination of our people. When the Federal Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787, our nation was bound by the Articles of Confederation, which began with the words, "We the undersigned delegates." When Gouverneur Morris was asked to draft a preamble to our new Constitution, he offered an important revision and opened with words that changed the course of our nation and the history of the world: "We the people."
"By trusting the people, our Founders wagered that a great and noble nation could be built on the liberty that resides in the hearts of all men and women. By trusting the people, succeeding generations transformed our fragile young democracy into the most powerful nation on Earth and a beacon of hope for millions. And so long as we continue to trust the people, our nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the state of our Union will remain strong."

In each of these instances Mr. Bush you have used our desire for democracy and control of the government and our lives against us. You promise us the power that you do not intend to deliver.

We find your talk of trusting the people hypocrisy, Mr. Bush.

M.O.W. would like to share with our fellow Founder-stalkers what we feel a real president who wants to empower the people sounds like.

Watch this darlings:

We are pleased to announce that M.O.W. officially endorses Illinois Senator Barack Obama for President. We are convinced by his message of hope and common sense and we expect great things from him. We believe--and we hope that we are correct--that Mr. Obama is not a hypocrite like Mr. Bush and that he truly does desire to empower the people to control the government.

Election 2008: Madeleine K. Albright Lays it Down

2008-01-17T09:53:00.000-06:00

Dear Founder Stalkers,

We quite found former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright's January 13, 2008 Boston Globe piece to be very thoughtful and thought-provoking. We wonder, if we were to use Secretary Albright's 10 points as the criteria by which we should judge who should be the next president, then who would come out on top?

Clinton, Obama, Edwards or someone else? Please discuss.

more at twiigs.com...

What Do You Think of This?

2008-01-02T12:37:00.000-06:00

M.O.W. has enjoyed reading many of the year-in-review articles around the interwebs largely because many of them actually pass judgment about the people and events of the year and we like to read about what other people think of things--even if we don't agree.

(As an aside we wrote our first essay when we were eight years old comparing the founding fathers to Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." In case any of you were wondering how M.O.W. became obsessed with founder-stalking, this fact might provide a clue)

M.O.W. thought that one of the more interesting year-in-review lists appeared over at The BEAST and that this, in particular, was an interesting comment (on the "most loathsome of the year"):

9. You

Charges: You believe in freedom of speech, until someone says something that offends you. You suddenly give a damn about border integrity, because the automated voice system at your pharmacy asked you to press 9 for Spanish. You cling to every scrap of bullshit you can find to support your ludicrous belief system, and reject all empirical evidence to the contrary. You know the difference between patriotism and nationalism -- it's nationalism when foreigners do it. You hate anyone who seems smarter than you. You care more about zygotes than actual people. You love to blame people for their misfortunes, even if it means screwing yourself over. You still think Republicans favor limited government. Your knowledge of politics and government are dwarfed by your concern for Britney Spears' children. You think buying Chinese goods stimulates our economy. You think you're going to get universal health care. You tolerate the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques." You think the government is actually trying to improve education. You think watching CNN makes you smarter. You think two parties is enough. You can't spell. You think $9 trillion in debt is manageable. You believe in an afterlife for the sole reason that you don't want to die. You think lowering taxes raises revenue. You think the economy's doing well. You're an idiot.

Exhibit A: You couldn't get enough Anna Nicole Smith coverage.

Sentence: A gradual decline into abject poverty as you continue to vote against your own self-interest. Death by an easily treated disorder that your health insurance doesn't cover. You deserve it, chump.

Yet, at the beginning of 2007 Time declared YOU their most influential "Person of the Year." 2007 was supposed to be YOUR year, what happened? M.O.W. finds this all very confusing.

Now, many of you know of our deep seated love of the people. We are the champions of the people. We have spent a great deal of time and energy thinking about the people and their role in the government. We have devoted our career to figuring out exactly how and why the people do not have political power in a government that claims to be "democratic." We are ego-involved in loving the people, it is who we are.

Yet, we are more than a little persuaded by The BEAST here. And, as ever, we wonder what our friends think. We know that some (many) of you do not share our love for the people. We know that many of you like that democracy is not democratic for you believe that the people are a rabble and you fear the demagogues who control them. Yes, we've heard this from you before...

We fear that we might be beginning to agree with you. What if M.O.W. becomes a people-hater too? Who will be left to love the people if we give up? Maybe we are just grumpy and need a nap.

What do you think founder-stalkers: are the people the cause or the cure for what ails America today? And, why wasn't 2007 YOUR year? Or, was it?

Small "R" republicanism and the United States

2007-12-17T20:24:00.000-06:00

Our dear friend recently sent us a link to a March 6, 2001 Bill introduced into the House of Representatives by sometime Texas Republican, sometime Texas Independent, and current 2008 presidential hopeful, Ron Paul. M.O.W. was shocked upon reading the Bill, "Expressing the sense of the Congress in reaffirming the United States of America as a republic," not because she disagrees with the premise of the Bill, but because she never heard about it in 2001. We find it intriguing that Mr. Paul both knows the difference between a republic and a democracy and knows that the United States is a republic (as we have often mentioned here: democracy is a lie).

We find it beyond extraordinary that Mr. Paul asked the House to declare that the United States is not a democracy. Indeed, we never thought that we would see a politician propose that the government would unmask its own greatest weapon of social control. Yet, apparently, one did. Let us spare you the suspense now: the Bill was sent to the Judiciary Committee, which buried it, never to be acted upon. Upon reflection, M.O.W. is pleased that the Bill was buried, for R. Paul did not actually mean what we hoped that he had meant with his little Bill.

The Bill itself is of interest, especially to we founder-stalkers. Let's set the stage shall we? It was March 6, 2001, which means that George W. Bush had been acting as president a mere 45 days by our count. His January 20, 2001 Inaugural Address had promised that America's "democratic faith is more than the creed of our country, it is the inborn hope of our humanity, an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear and pass along." Mr. Bush recognized that there were divisions among Americans, but he had made "a solemn pledge" to "work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity." A single, united, American nation devoted to freedom and equality, was his avowed agenda. And while he believed that it would be a challenge to unite Americans thusly, Mr. Bush also knew that "this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves who creates us equal in His image."

Ahem. [We find that we simply must pause for editorial comment]

Yes, Mr. Bush, you are the great uniter because God told you to unite Americans and you united them. Oh, and, also, you will succeed because "we [you, Mr. Bush] are confident in principles that unite and lead us onward."

So confident you are, Good work!

Oh, and Mr. Bush, this is a little creepy in retrospect: "Some seem to believe that our politics can afford to be petty because, in a time of peace, the stakes of our debates appear small. But the stakes for America are never small. If our country does not lead the cause of freedom, it will not be led." I mean, September 11, 2001 is just eight months away and it kinda looks like you're saying here that we need a war to unite us and it kinda sounds like you're kinda saying the same thing here that you will say in your January 29, 2002 Axis of Evil SOTU.

We are not sayin', we're just sayin'.

Anyway, so Mr. Bush had been saying inane things like these and golfing a lot and trying to act like he had actually won the 2000 election or trying to play it off like he had not actually stolen the election and was generally not paying too much attention to things like the Constitution and whatnot when Mr. Paul offered H.Con.Res 48 for his fellow Representatives' approval.

Mr. Paul's Bill*, as is customary, contained as series of propositions--14, in this case--all beginning with "Whereas," which formed the Bill's argument:

1) Whereas the form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution of the United States is a republic--not a democracy;**

Yes, while the Declaration did not use the word "republic" it also did not use the word "democracy" and most Americans understood in 1776 that the Revolution had created a republican form of government in each state and a Confederated republic of States. By 1787 Americans self-consciously rejected democracy and embraced republicanism (see our posts on the shenanigans surrounding the ratification of the Constitution and Shays's Rebellion) largely due to their fear of the people ruling.

2) Whereas the Nation's founders understood that pure 'democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths' (Federalist No. 10);

Yes, R. Paul, J-Mad wrote in Fed 10 that he feared democracy, yes.

3) Whereas throughout the 224-year history of the United States as an independent and sovereign nation, the people of the United States have never exercised power as a democracy;

Yes, R. Paul, you are right again. America has never been a democracy.

4) Whereas the people of the United States have always acted by and through the Federal Union of the several States, electing Members of Congress from each of the several States and the President and Vice President by electoral votes proportioned to the number of Members of Congress representing each State;

Yes, the people have always acted through their Representatives--that is the definition of a republic, what is your point?

5) Whereas in the 2000 election for choosing electors for President and Vice President, it appears that the President-elect and Vice President-elect have won a majority of the State electoral vote, but not a plurality of the nationwide popular vote;

Uh-Oh! Oh, snap! Now R. Paul is getting going and he's going to let you have it GWB! You didn't win the popular vote and you know it! (and, you shouldn't have won the Electoral Vote and the Supreme Court shouldn't have decided the election and you know that too!)

6) Whereas the prospect of electing to office a President and Vice President who did not win the largest number of popular votes has generated proposals calling for a constitutional amendment to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President;

Yes, abolish the Electoral College, do it, DO IT! As M.O.W. wrote in a little USAToday Letter to the Editor in November 2000, the Electoral College is premised upon antiquated and insulting logics, meant to prevent the people from ruling. You tell 'em, R. Paul!

7) Whereas such a national popular election for President and Vice President disregards the constitutional integrity and inviolability of the 50 States as independent and sovereign governments;

Whaaaaa? I'm sorry R. Paul, but you've lost us a little here. What do you mean about the "national popular election" potentially disregarding the "integrity and inviolability of the 50 States as independent and sovereign governments??" Oh, wow, like you mean that if those crazy "abolish the Electoral College" nutjobs (like M.O.W.) get their way, then the States will no longer be independent and sovereign? Oh, dude. No. That was not where we thought that you were going with that. We thought that you might be a man of the people. You are SO not a man of the people, you are a man of the States! Let's hear it for States' Rights and R. Paul! Wheeeeeeee.

8) Whereas in their foresight and wisdom, the people of the United States, meeting by representation in State conventions, adopted a national Constitution preserving the independence and equal standing of the 50 States;

Yeah, yeah, yeah. We totally see you now. I mean, we could mention that there were obviously not 50 states in 1787-1789, but what would be the point, really? We could also point out that there was equal representation in the Senate only and that proportional representation prevailed in the House and in the Electoral College, which would mean that "the people of the United States" did not preserve "the independence and equal standing of the 50 States." In fact, J-Mad's original Virginia Draft was meant to do this, but it was shot down. Ever hear of the "Great Compromise"? I guess not.

9) Whereas the Federal system of equal and independent States is an essential safeguard against shifting wills of the majority overriding the unchanging rights of the minority;

Well, ok, see my response above for the "equal and independent" canard, but did you just say that you are against majority will and the people? But, you just said that the 2000 election was messed up because the popular vote was disregarded. We are so confused. Do you like the people or don't you? Cause it kinda seems like you don't.

10) Whereas to preserve the rights of the minority from a tyranny of the majority, the Constitution of the United States struck a principled balance between the people of the most populous States and the people of the least populous States;

That is one way of looking at it. Another way would be to say the small states threatened to walk out of the Constitutional Convention unless J-Mad changed the method of representation in the House, thus holding the entire Convention, the Constitution, and the nation hostage to their "minority rights."

11) Whereas to that end, the Constitution of the United States provides that the legislatures of each of the several States, without interference from Congress or any other branch of the Federal Government or State governments, determine the manner of election of the President and the Vice President by State electors from each State;

Once again R. Paul, you are very confused. As we've already mentioned, the Electoral College is premised on the same proportional representation as the House is, which means that it is specifically not equal. Haven't you ever noticed that Texass gets more Electoral College votes than Maryland, for example?

12) Whereas the number of electors is distributed in accordance with each State's representation in the House of Representatives and in accordance with each State's equal standing in the Senate, not by a direct nationwide election in accordance with population alone;

Right, not equal, then, right? OK, but also, as you say, not by a direct nationwide popular vote.

13) Whereas the constitutionally prescribed system in the 2000 election for choosing electors for President and Vice President continues to function as originally designed, protecting minority and States' rights from the exercise of majority power; and

We are sorry, but what part of the 2000 election appeared to you to follow the constitutionally prescribed system? We are getting tired...

14) Whereas the electoral college system thereby preserves the diversity of the American people and maintains the United States as a Federal republic--not as a democracy:

Oh, R. Paul! This is a mess. What have you done? You've not proven diversity of the American people, this is completely off topic; nor have you proven that the Electoral College maintains the U.S. as a Federal republic. You see, the people could directly vote for the president and the nation could still be a republic. One thing technically has nothing to do with the other. We call non sequitar, false cause and red herring on you! Bad arguments, R. Paul. Very bad, indeed.

Thus, and to these ends, R. Paul made his argument that the United States is a republic rather than a democracy. He did not make these arguments to liberate the people from the democratic myth, but rather to further the Electoral College and protect what he believed was the States' "equal and independent" status.

You sir, are no man of the people.

And that is about the worst thing that M.O.W. can think to say to someone who hopes to be president. We see you R. Paul and we are not pleased.

*Technically it was a Concurrent Resolution, meaning members from both the House and the Senate authored and submitted the Bill, but Paul was the first author and the submitter, which is why we can call it his Bill.

**Editorial note: like a good debater, we've number the propositions to facilitate our rebuttal.

M.O.W.'s Wonderful Winter Writing Projects

2007-12-08T10:08:00.001-06:00

Dear Fellow Founder Stalkers & Friends of M.O.W.,

We recognize that we have been remiss in publishing our musings and rants about the founders and their friends and we are pleased that so many of you keep coming back here to check on us. We regret that your coming here to see what we have to say has not actually given us the motivation to think of something clever to say. We are very sorry for that, indeed.

We fear that we still have very little to contribute to founder-stalking on this day, but we thought that we might discuss the three papers that we are currently working on and which are all due over the next few weeks. We hope that some fellow founder stalkers might have something useful to suggest to us by way of resources or analysis. If not, then at least you know why we are so quiet here on the interwebs.

M.O.W.'s Wonderful Winter Writing Projects:

1. Co-Author Chapter on Constitutive Rhetoric with a very smart mentor & colleague (JJ). JJ asked me to co-author a chapter for the Handbook of Public Address, which will be published by Blackwell in the next year or so (which is TOTALLY a Big Deal). We will review the literature on constitutive rhetoric--the idea that language positions people and things, calls them into being as Althusser would say--and then do a case study on the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and their immediate reception by the States, their more distant reception in the Hartford Convention of 1815, and their use in the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833. The idea is to trace how the ideas of the Resolutions--which quickly became known as the "Principles of '98"--filtered into America's political discourse even though they had next to no effect in their immediate context. Due January 15, 2008.

2. Revise & Resubmit essay on "Constituting Romantic Heroes in the Discourse of July 4, 1826" to the Quarterly Journal of Speech. M.O.W. just got the reviewers' comments back on this essay yesterday and she is excited that they liked the idea of the essay and that they had some thoughtful suggestions for how she can improve it. Truth be told, M.O.W. has been working on a version of this essay for quite some time and she hopes that she can get it right this time. The problem seems to be that it is far too interesting of a rhetorical moment to capture all of the richness of what is going on, why, and how it works. But, M.O.W. will persevere and figure out how to say something useful and interesting about the deaths of Adams and Jefferson on America's Jubilee. The Jubilee fell in the middle of the longest and dirtiest political campaign in the nation's history (the 1828 grudge match between Andy Jack and JQA) and marked the shift between the first and second generations, the shift between the American political fiction and political myth, and the shift in American political discourse from republican to democratic. The net result was to reify the Founder's romantic and tragic republican fictions and to bury the tragic fiction to the backrooms of public discourse. You see fellow founder stalkers, there was a lot happening in that one moment. No wonder we have such difficulty turning it into a neat 35 page essay. No fear though, we will--somehow. Due January 18, 2008.

3. Co-Author essay with super smart Poly Sci Guy friend (JV) on the Bush Rhetorical Legacy and expand upon the idea that SJH and I began to develop in our PSQ essay about the "post-rhetorical presidency." Here JV and I will make the argument about the post-rhetorical presidency much clearer and look at three facets of Bush's rhetoric that demonstrate precisely how the new rhetorical patterns function to frustrate citizen action and prevent democratic deliberation: Presidential Signing Statements; the role of the Press Secretary; and Bush's General Rhetorical Style (this last section seems the most fuzzy to M.O.W.--what does that mean, "general style?" Maybe M.O.W. should build off of her RPA democratic style essay for that, eh? Note to self, obviously). In any case, we will present this essay in March at a conference about "Assessing the Bush Legacy," which sounds like a ton of fun, but means that we need to get this all written soon. Deadline is ambiguous, but something like mid-February, 2008.

Thus, fellow founder-stalkers, M.O.W. has her head full of ideas, none of which are developed enough to really share with you all here. Remember, M.O.W. follows the advice of her dear mentor, the late David Swanson: "it is best to not conduct our education in public," he said to M.O.W. once. And, as ever, he was right.

Any ideas for our Wonderful Winter Writing Projects? M.O.W. gladly accepts any and all thoughts about these important questions.

Executive Power, Part II: The 2008 Presidential Election Edition

2007-10-29T11:07:00.000-05:00

We are very concerned about the 2008 Presidential election, especially because of what the last Administration has done to pervert the balance of power between the branches (see our post on Cheney's Law below). M.O.W. knows that there are serious problems facing the nation; indeed, how could she forget with CNN reminding us that the "planet is in peril" at every opportunity. Yes, we must choose our next president based upon how well we believe that she or he can solve problems, for America--and the world--faces more problems today than perhaps it ever has before in its history. Let's face it, loyal founder-stalkers, we are beset on all sides with impending disaster: the economy, health care, Social Security, education, the environment, race relations, the un-ending War on Terror, and more each demand real solutions in the next eight years. We have real problems that need solved, and how.

The temptation, therefore, is to promote someone to the office of the presidency who is a known problem-solver. Yet, M.O.W. believes that we must be very careful about who we chose, for a balance must be struck between choosing a president who is energetic and one who will abuse their power and further consolidate power in the Executive Branch. We know that there are many, many problems facing the nation and that Americans may be tempted to vote based solely on who has a workable plan to fix Social Security or the environment or end the War on Terror, for example. But, M.O.W. strongly believes that the presidency itself is in as precarious a position as the environment or the economy and she would urge her fellow Americans to consider how their candidate would handle power once it was theirs.

We are not alone in our worry. Rachel Morris over at Washington Monthly has an excellent article about the possibility of a Rudy Giuliani presidency and what his track record as NYC Mayor portends for his use of Executive power. She argues that if we can read the past as prologue, then "of all the presidential candidates, Giuliani is most likely to take the expansions of the executive branch made by the Bush administration and push them further still." This is a thought that makes M.O.W. very, very nervous.

Like most Americans, we were grateful for Mayor Giuliani on September 11, 2001. We felt, unlike President Bush, that Mayor Giuliani seemed like a leader. He appeared on tv at regular intervals and said things that made sense: he needed these services here and there, he had co-ordinated rescue efforts here and there, we should stay out of the city, donate blood, help out, etc. Yes, M.O.W. was impressed with Giuliani on that day, especially when contrasted with what President Bush said--"America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world"--as if saying something as inane and insipid as that would actually help anything or anyone on that day. Thus, M.O.W. can easily see the appeal of a Giuliani presidency: he seems like the kind of guy who would solve problems and get things done.

And, we need problems solved right now.

But, let us remember that we need to resolve the problems with the constitution too and if Rudy Giuliani is the kind of leader who gets things done by fiat and refuses to act within the restraints accorded to the office by the constitution, then his presidency would be harmful to the nation. History is full of examples of people giving power to men who promise to solve problems and who become tyrants, dictators, fuehrers.

M.O.W. is watching the presidential race very carefully. She plans to ask each of the leading candidates what they would do with power should it become theirs. We encourage our fellow founder-stalkers to do the same.

Frontline: Cheney's Law

2007-10-16T21:21:00.000-05:00

The Frontline special called Cheney's Law has once again reminded M.O.W. of why it is so important to maintain the balance of power between the three branches. We have long believed that the Judiciary and the Executive, which are the two least democratic branches, are also the most dangerous branches, precisely because they are less directly controlled by the people. These two branches of government have the potential to conspire together, as they apparently have for the past 6 years under the Bush/Cheney Regime. We believed then that the coup d'etat of 2000 was portentous, and as Frontline demonstrates, we were correct: the same people who disregarded both the will of the people and the constitutional mechanisms for deciding the presidency in 2000 are precisely the people who would later consolidate power in the Executive Branch and use that power to reward their friends and punish their enemies.

Abuse of power comes as no surprise.

Yet, the thing that makes M.O.W. so very sad is that Bush/Cheney have been permitted their coup d'etat. We have allowed them to usurp the power of law. We have allowed them to tyrannize the people. No one has stood up to them. Where is the opposition party? Of what use is the two party system if no one will stand up? Of what use are the three branches of government if each branch does not check upon the others?

Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense that one would not be able to find "the King of America," because in "America the law is King." Cheney has explicitly reversed Paine and the rest of the Revolutionary generation's understanding of the correct ordering of law and leader: he has put himself above the law, and what is worse, he has put himself above the constitution. M.O.W. fears a day soon when she will hear "Long Live King Cheney!"

Where are the real patriots when you need them? Who will defend the constitution from these attacks?

Who, indeed.

Founder-Chic Fact or Fiction: Anti-federalist Edition

2007-10-14T10:40:00.001-05:00

M.O.W. attended a lovely ball last night filled with lovely people and even lovelier conversation. Despite all of this loveliness, M.O.W. found herself challenged in a very un-lovely way by one of her beloved fellow ballers. For, M.O.W. had (correctly) identified herself as an Anti-federalist, upon which she found herself accused of not meaning what she meant. She was informed that she could not possibly be an Anti-federalist because, as our challenger believed, she would have supported the fact that the federal government intruded upon state jurisdictions to end slavery. Ahem.

M.O.W. graciously let these challenges pass by her by without much notice--best not to ruin a lovely evening, she believed--but she knew that it would be necessary to have another Founder-Chic Fact or Fiction. Clearly our challenger had confused States Rights' with Anti-federalism, which of course, are not the same thing at all.

Before we get the to real issue, M.O.W. feels compelled to notice that (quite obviously) the federal government did not end slavery. As we all know, the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the North, whose states had already ended slavery prior to any act of the federal government. Rather, the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery in the states that were then in rebellion, over which the federal government had no authority. Therefore, no slave was emancipated by the Emancipation Proclamation. Our challenger was thus misinformed on more than the differences between Anti-federalism and States' Rights.

Founder-Chic Fact or Fiction: Anti-federalist Edition

Fact or Fiction: Anti-federalism is the same as States' Rights.

Verdict: Fiction

Quite simply, Anti-federalists were those who opposed the overthrow of the Articles of Confederation and the ratification of the new consolidated national government between 1786 and 1789. As we know, those whom were called Anti-federalists (most famously George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, Patrick Henry, Robert Yates, George Clinton, etc.) were in actuality federalists, for it was they who desired to keep the federal relationship between the states and to maintain a confederation rather than introduce a consolidated national government that they feared would be too unwieldy for the people to control. Thus, at the most basic level, the Anti-federalists were those Americans who feared a centralized and uncontrollable national power and who believed that liberty could best be preserved by smaller governments, closer to the people. M.O.W. was indeed an Anti-federalist, she even penned an important essay, Observations on the New Constitution under the pseudonym "Columbian Patriot." Despite the fact that many at the time--and even some respected historians later--would attribute her very smart 22 page pamphlet to Gerrymander, M.O.W. was its author and a decided Anti-federalist, which would embarrass her very Federalist nephew Harrison Gray Otis for years to come.

Those whom we think of as advocates of States' Rights doctrines turn not to Anti-federalists of 1786-1789 for their arguments, but rather justify their arguments by appealing to the logic of the 1798 Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts. Funny thing about those Resolutions is that they were written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, one of whom was a lukewarm supporter of the 1787 constitution and the other of whom was the author of the constitution itself! Thus, in no way were the "Heroes of '98" the Anti-federalists of 1786-1789, nor would later States' Rights advocates be those who desired a truly federal government. The "Principles of '98" would return as awkward justification for the 1815 Federalist Hartford Convention and would be used more stridently by South Carolina to support their position in the Nullification Controversy of 1830. Whether or not John C. Calhoun and company were justified in their use of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions to make their case is another matter all together, but is certainly debatable.

Thus, fellow Founder-stalkers, M.O.W. was, and continues to be, an Anti-federalist, which we now understand is not the same as being an advocate for States' Rights. She is an Anti-federalist because she believes--with Montesquieu--that a large republic is a contradiction. A government based upon the will of the people must be small enough for the people to control, otherwise it is not a republic, but an oligarchy. M.O.W. believes that the fearful predictions of the Anti-federalists of 1786-1789 have obtained in America and thus, she has no trouble justifying her Anti-federalism. Furthermore, she believes that if it were not for the introduction of the new consolidated government in 1789 with its compromises over slavery, it is very likely that slavery would have ended on its own, and much more quickly than it actually did.

M.O.W. finds the States' Rights folks a tad confused, but that is a topic for another day.

The Shock Doctrine

2007-10-03T10:04:00.000-05:00

Naomi Klein has a new book out called The Shock Doctrine and filmmaker Alfonso Cuaron has made a short video to accompany it.

It is quite shocking.

M.O.W. has long thought that political discourse is dominated by Order, Control, and Safety arguments. The Shock Doctrine would seem to substantiate her belief. The search for order, control, and safety is a natural human tendency, M.O.W. believes. We all would like to bring order to our chaotic worlds, control scary and unpleasant aspects of our environment, and create a safe place for ourselves and our loved ones. It is quite natural and even noble to be concerned with order, control, and safety. However, our needs for order, control, and safety can and are used against us by powerful others (parents, educators, politicians, governments) to scare us into allowing those in power to make decisions for us that are not in our best interest. When faced with scary events, or when we are convinced that we should fear something, we willingly give up our power to those who proclaim that they can once again restore order, control, and safety. We exchange justice, liberty, and freedom for order, control, and safety every time, M.O.W. thinks.

We haven't read The Shock Doctrine yet, but we look forward to reading what Ms. Klein has to say about Uncle Milty and his Evil Ways. We are sure that it will help us to think more about our next book on how order, control, and safety arguments have been used to produced apathy in American citizens.

Confessions of an Amatuer Historian

2007-09-29T11:20:00.000-05:00

M.O.W. must confess that, despite her 1805 History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution, she is not actually a trained historian. She has been obsessed with stalking the founders for so long that it may appear that she knows everything about them--and, indeed, she does. You may be surprised to learn that her training is not as a historian, but as a scholar of rhetoric. The funny thing about that is that history and rhetoric share a fundamental similarity: both rely upon stories to create meaning. Kenneth Burke defined rhetoric in his Rhetoric of Motives as “the use of words by human agents to form attitudes or to induce actions in other human agents.” There are many definitions of rhetoric, but this one suits our purposes as well as any other. The key thing about Burke's definition is that we do things with rhetoric and rhetoric does things to us--rhetoric is a kind of action and when actions are read together or presented together to form attitudes or induce actions in others they form stories. Thus, rhetoric is story-telling and history is rhetoric.

It was thus with great pleasure that we read Arran Gare's essay on the "primordial role of stories in human self-creation," for Mr. Gare seems to share our view that the rigid distinctions between poetic, rhetoric, and dialectic are silly. Indeed, as Mr. Gare notes, "history emerged in Ancient Greece along with philosophy. 'Istoria,' from which both the terms 'history' and 'story' derive, meant 'inquiry,' associated with investigation into the causes of conflicts, of failures and achievements, and holding people responsible for their actions." (96) In other words, story-telling is a kind of epistemology--it is a way of knowing specific to a particular community.

Hannah Arendt has also noted the relationship between rhetoric, story-telling, and history-as-inquiry. She notes in On the Human Condition that meaning only appears in retrospect for “it is not the actor but the storyteller who perceives and ‘makes’ the story.” Communal stories thus have the power to define not only what occurred, but how we think about what has occurred. As Arendt reminds us, “who somebody is or was we can know only by knowing the story of which he is himself the hero—his biography, in other words; everything else we know of him, including the work he may have produced and left behind, tells us only what he is or was.”

Thus, the stories that Founder-Chic tells as she stalks the founders with you, her loyal fellow founder-stalkers, help the community--of founder-stalkers, of Americans, of historians, of the world multitude--to understand who the founders were. Yet, these stories also serve as a form of inquiry. We may kid and it may all seem like fun--and it IS fun to stalk the founders--but, our stories are also a way of knowing and of reinforcing or negating particular "truths" about American history.

M.O.W. has a point with all of her founder-stalking. We are silly, yes, but we are also quite serious. And, we think that is ok.

And...We're Back!

2007-09-28T11:32:00.000-05:00

M.O.W. recognizes that she has been gone for quite some time. She apologizes for her abscence and hopes that her loving fellow founder stalkers did not miss her too much. She was not traipsing about Europe, alas, but working on completing what her dear friend GAYPROF calls the "never-ending-research-project-of-doom," i.e., her book manuscript.

That done, she finds herself free, free, free to stalk the founders with the best of them. Won't you stalk the founders with me?

2008 Prez Wannabees

2007-08-07T09:52:00.000-05:00

M.O.W found this chart on the internets and thought that it might be helpful for those of you--like her--who are trying to sort out all of the myriad candidates and positions. This little chart--M.O.W. is not sure who made it, truth be known--handily organizes the 18 known candidates on 18 issues facing the United States in the year 2007.

We have to admit that no one here corresponds exactly to our views, but we like Obama and Edwards the best at this point (we even have an Obama t-shirt). They seem hopeful, energetic. They seem like they have a plan and they know how to use it. They do not appear to be out for power merely for power's sake, but rather to do something good with it. We like that and we hope for good things from them. Remembering that abuse of power comes as no surprise, we are cautiously optimistic, however.

Yet, in glancing over their respective positions we were a little dismayed to learn that Edwards supports the death penalty, which M.O.W. finds barbaric. Why, oh, why Mr. Edwards should the state be allowed to kill people? Isn't it bad enough that we have the world's largest prison population? And, Mr. Obama, don't think that we didn't notice that you and Edwards both support the Patriot Act and are both against same-sex marriage. What gives, gentleman? We find many things to admire in your positions, we would just feel more comfortable giving you our support if we could understand why you think it fine to deny people basic rights and equality.

What say you Founder-Chic readers: Obama/Edwards '08 or Edwards/Obama '08?

more at twiigs.com...

You Talkin' to Me?

2007-07-27T10:44:00.000-05:00

M.O.W. finds this report from the November 13, 1798 Gazette of the United States comical:

"THE jacobins have taken up the trick of late, which they have borrowed from their friends, the French, of employing ladies in their wicked maneuvers...The amiable daughters of America will lose greatly by mingling in the stormy elements of politics...This ill-chosen business, if you pursue it, will spoil your beauty, as well as mar your happiness; it will plant your bosoms with thorns, and deform your lovely faces with wrinkles before their proper time. Be warned; retreat, before it it too late."

A Friend to the Fair

(Quoted from: American Aurora, Richard N. Rosenfeld, 538)

M.O.W. admits that she would not like her lovely face deformed by wrinkles before her time, nor would she like thorns in her bosom. Perhaps you are right GUS, perhaps we ladies should leave the politic-ing to the men. You all seem to be doing a fine job ruining, I mean running, the nation.

Why are you trying to annoy us, GUS?

Tommy's Farewell

2007-07-25T10:33:00.001-05:00

Ever think about how extraordinary it was that Tommy and JA both managed to die on the 50th Anniversary of July 4? Americans at the time viewed the wacky coincidence as a sign from Providence and while they initially could not decide if the twin deaths were a sign that God loved them or hated them--was it glorious or an omen??--the Americans of 1826 decided that they wanted to believe that it was definitely a sign that the G-O-D loves America.

For, as newspapers like the July 8, 1826 New York American observed there was

“nothing in the annals of man so striking, so beautiful, as the death of these two time honored patriots on the jubilee of that freedom, which they devoted themselves and all that was dear to them, to proclaim and establish.”

Really? Really New York American there was nothing more striking or beautiful in the history of the world than the deaths of JA and Tommy? Huh, that seems a little, well, hyperbolic to us, but if that is the way that you feel, I suppose that you are entitled to that opinion. Funny though.

We admit that we sometimes wonder at the sheer will power that it took for both of them to conspire to die on that day. Tommy had been near-death for days and days. He would wake up from a laudanum-induced coma every now and then and ask if it was yet the Fourth of July. When he finally heard that it was he barked some orders at a slave and then died several hours later. JA was in slightly better health and had even received visitors and given them a toast for the local Fourth of July celebration ("Independence forever and not a syllable more," he reportedly said), but yet he still managed to die that day.

There is something very drama and a little spooky about that, for sure.

But, you know what interests us about it even more than the mere fact that it happened? We think that it is fascinating just how much Americans lost their minds about it and how they decided that because of it America was truly exceptional. The belief in American exceptionalism allowed them to do some not so nice things: Trail of Tears anyone? Slavery as a positive good for the nation? Westward expansion? All v. bad, all justified by our belief that we were a chosen people on a chosen land. Of course, we had believed that for a long time, but the deaths of JA and Tommy proved it. Like the New York American said, there was nothing more beautiful in the history of the world and that belief justified everything else.

The logic is something like:

JA and Tommy died in the craziest way possible; clearly, God has spoken; the deaths prove that God loves America; America can do nothing wrong because God loves us.

Americans then and now were not meant to question this logic. For example, would God really love a broke slaveholder? How about a grumpy and vain curmudgeon? Was God a republican? See, if you ask questions about the logic, then none of it makes any sense. But, for Americans at the time the whole thing didn't make any sense, so this gave them a story, a frame for understanding.

Tommy's last words to the people had asked them to view the then-upcoming Fourth of July celebration as:

"The signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. The form which we have substituted restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason, and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the lights of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others--for ourselves let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."

Tommy had 'borrowed' the "booted and spurred" line from the 1685 gallows speech of Richard Rumbold, but Americans didn't know that at the time, nor would it have mattered much if they did. While we certainly like Tommy's letter and agree with its sentiment, we wonder at the contradictions between what Tommy wrote here and how Americans reacted to the deaths. I mean, can we really say that Americans did not act with "monkish ignorance" or "superstition" when they resoundingly pronounced the deaths as "glorious" and the most "striking" and "beautiful" event in the history of the world? Were they really using the "lights of science" when they interpreted the whole thing as a sign from God?

We're not sayin', we're just sayin...

You can read the full text of Tommy's Last Letter here at the Library of Congress (we heart the LOC!)

Conflict of Interest in the Ratification of the Constitution?

2007-07-07T13:37:00.001-05:00

Here are some fun stats we compiled about the ratification of the constitution:

Number of members of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia: 55

Number of members who signed the constitution at the end of the Convention: 39

Number of Constitutional Convention Delegates who also served at their State Ratifying Conventions: 29

Number of those 29 who voted in favor of their own work: 24

Wikipedia defines "conflict of interest" thusly:

"A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, a politician, executive or director of a corporation or a medical research scientist or physician, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical or improper act results from it. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system."

Founder-Chic believes that there was a serious conflict of interest in the Ratification Process. The people supposedly ratified the constitution, but with so many of the Convention Delegates passing judgment on their own work, it seems like the people might have gotten the shaft.

We think that Massachusetts Convention Delegate Amos Singletary summed it up nicely:

“These lawyers, and men of learning, and moneyed men that talk so finely and gloss over matters so smoothly, to make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill, expect to get into Congress themselves; they expect to be the managers of the Constitution and get all the power and all the money into their own hands, and then they will swallow up all us little folks, like the great Leviathan."

Yes, Mr. Singletary, isn't that the way it happens? First the elite make the constitution, then they ratify it themselves, and then they take positions of power within the new government that they've just created. What else can we call that but tyranny?

Bad Founders, very bad. We see you and we are not pleased.

Keith Olberman Gets it, Gives it to King George

2007-07-05T10:21:00.000-05:00

Founder-Chic is pleased to present MSNBC host Keith Olbermann's indictment of President Bush's latest tyrannical act: the 'commuting' of Scooter Libby's sentence.

As Mr. Olbermann rightly argues, the Constitution is clear on this question: when an Executive exercises his prerogative powers for party ends, then s/he ceases to be the President of the United States and is only the president of his party.

Where is the concern for the common good, Mr. President? You were supposed to be above party and above faction. You were supposed to care about the health of the republic. You were supposed to uphold the Constitution. You were supposed to promote and protect democracy, not promote and protect the Republican Party.

Shame on you Mr. President.

Founder-Chic joins Mr. Olberman in calling for the resignation of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.

more at twiigs.com...

Founder Chic: Happy Independence Day America!

2007-07-02T10:42:00.000-05:00

Here is the play by play:

June 7, 1776.

Richard Henry Lee moves that the Continental Congress consider three motions: first, “that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved"; second, that the newly independent states form “foreign Alliances”; and, third, that they create a “plan of confederation.”

The Continental Congress delays consideration so that Delegates can get instructions from their colonies.When the debate resumed on July 1 four colonies refused to approve: South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New York.

The hero of this tale has to be Caesar Rodney, who rode the eighty miles between Dover, Delaware and Philadelphia that night just in time to swing his colony’s vote on July 2. After that, John Dickinson and Robert Morris abstained and allowed James Wilson to cast Pennsylvania’s vote for independence; South Carolina changed its mind and now approved; and, New York abstained entirely until the next week when it also voted in favor of independence. 12 states voted for independence on July 2 and the Continental Congress called it "unanimous"--we were independent!

Thus, July 2, 1776 is America's birthday. In his excitement for the act that he had done so much to bring about JA wrote to Abby that:

"The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not."

Why do we celebrate July 4 instead of July 2 as Adams believed that we would?

There are at least two answers that we can think of: first, there was a war on during the first anniversary and we simply forgot. The Records of the Continental Congress for July 2, 1777 show a deliberative body busily conducting the business of war: they empowered a Commission to find a Minister Plenipotentiary to go to Holland (M.O.W would LOVE to be a Minister Plenipotentiary some day, it sounds so grand!); they got a new surgeon general and a new member for the Board of War; they paid people for supplies; planned a discussion of the still un-ratified Articles of Confederation for the next day, etc. They were very, very busy boys on July 2, 1777. They continued their very busy schedule when they met again on July 3, they had Friday July 4 off and then met again on July 5. So they celebrated on July 4 because they had the day off--just an accident of history. In 1781 Massachusetts legislature was the first to make the celebration of Independence on July 4 official. Boston and North Carolina both made it an official holiday in 1783.

The second reason that we celebrate the Declaration of Independence rather than the day that we became independent is because of the politics of the 1790s--especially the second half of the 1790s.

Tommy didn't like A-Ham, nor did he like his politics or his view of an ideal America. A-Ham felt the same about Tommy. Founders picked sides, gloves were taken off, bitch-fighting began. Some folks--like GW--got caught in the middle; some folks--like JA--tried to stay out of it. Tommy resigned from GW's cabinet and became the mastermind of the opposition. GW resigned from office after his second term (future presidents would continue to self-impose two term limits on themselves out of respect to GW until FDR) and JA thought that he was a shoe-in for the post. After all, he had been the VP for 8 long years; he had seniority; he had negotiated the Treaty of Paris; he had been instrumental in convincing the Continental Congress to agree to independence on July 2. In short, he had his creds in order and he deserved it.

But, Tommy wanted it too. And, Tommy was pretty crafty. He had lined up his peeps behind him. Tommy did not have as many creds as JA though and so they had to make the most of the things that he did have. He had served as Minister to France after Benji came home; he had...um...run away from the British while he was Governor of Virginia (oops, best not mention that); well, he had written some things. Yeah, that's what he did, Tommy wrote a bunch of important things. He wrote the Summary View of the Rights of British Americans (for which he deserves much cred, MOW believes) and he wrote the Declaration of Independence--all by himself!--well, with a little help from the Drafting Committee, which included JA. So, you can see that Tommy was in a tough spot vis a vis his creds compared to JA.

Tommy's peeps began to make the Declaration into more of a big deal than it had been before--nobody thought to read the Declaration of Independence when they celebrated independence until Tommy's peeps began doing so as PR for how great Tommy was, for example.

JA got elected Prez in 1796 and Tommy got VP. By the 1800 election Tommy would tie with A-Burr for Prez, drama would ensue (eventually resulting in A-Burr shooting A-Ham in a 1804 duel). Tommy would finally win the top spot and JA would take off at 4 am so that he didn't have to watch Tommy get sworn into office. The two refused to speak for a decade, but then became friends again.

JA would always be pissed that Americans celebrate July 4 instead of July 2 believing that their doing so was evidence that they liked Tommy better than him. And, truth be told, Americans do like Tommy better than JA--even though Tommy had slaves and did some shady, shady things. JA just didn't have the personality for being adored--and, as a wise man once said "personality goes a long way."

MOW likes JA ok, so she celebrates both July 2 and July 4. Happy Birthday America!

Founder-Chic Fact or Fiction: Fourth Branch Edition

2007-06-27T23:31:00.000-05:00

We try not to get involved in petty political issues. After all, Founder-Chic does not like to use her fine powers for evil. Nor, however, do we like to see the U.S. Constitution so carelessly perverted. That document has enough problems of its own, we believe. Therefore, we've decided that a brief Founder-Chic Fact or Fiction is necessary to clear up this nonsense about the Vice-President not being a part of the Executive Branch. Fourth Branch, indeed!

Fact or Fiction: The Vice-President is NOT a part of the Executive Branch, as current VP Dick Cheney claims.

Verdict: FICTION. Let's turn our attention to the September 7, 1787 Constitutional Convention Notes, shall we? (pg. 596) Things were wrapping up; folks wanted to go home; everybody was bitchy--you get the idea. They were discussing this new post that they had just made up called the Vice-President. No body knew exactly what it was or why they made it...all of a sudden, poof! presto! there is a Vice-President. Now, what does the Vice-President do?

Article 1, Section 3 (in the final version) of the Constitution states, "The vice President shall be ex-officio President of the Senate."

Gerrymander, "opposed this regulation. We might as well put the President himself at the head of the Legislature. The close intimacy that must subsist between the President & vice-president makes it absolutely improper. He was against having any vice President."

GM, "The vice president then will be the first heir apparent that ever loved his father. If there should be no vice president, the President of the Senate would be temporary successor, which would amount to the same thing."
Shermy, "saw no danger in the case. If the vice-President were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment, and some member by being made President must be deprived of his vote, unless when an equal division of votes might happen in the Senate, which would be but seldom."

The states eventually voted 8 to 2 to approve the Vice-President as president of the Senate, even though he had a "close intimacy" with the President. John Adams was the first V.P. and was miserable--both at the job and in the job--earning himself the nickname "His Rotundity."

Therefore, Mr. Cheney, I believe that you are, in fact, a member of the Executive Branch. And, remember this: information wants to be FREE.

Oh, and here is a cute little Jon Stewart YouTube on this whole thing.

xoxo
M.O.W.

Founder-Chic Fact or Fiction: Independence Edition

2007-06-23T20:28:00.000-05:00

It is time, fellow Founder-Stalkers, for a new segement that we like to call "Founder-Chic Fact or Fiction." This is where we examine some of the most egregious errors of our collective memory about the events, places, and people of the founding generation.

For our first Founder-Chic Fact or Fiction let's have a little chat about Independence, shall we?

1. Fact or Fiction: we declared independence from Great Britain on July 4, 1776

Verdict: FICTION. We voted to declare independence on July 2, 1776, not July 4. July 4, 1776 is the day that the Continental Congress voted to approve the Drafting Committee's (Tommy, Benji, JA, Shermy, and RL) Declaration of Independence. Declaring Independence is not the same thing as approving the document that justifies that declaration.

Americans seemingly celebrate the document rather than the event.

2. Fact or Fiction: July 4, 1776 is the day that the CC signed the Declaration of Independence

Verdict: FICTION. They did not sign the Declaration on the day that they approved it, but on August 2 after a fair copy had been made and it had been printed. Some of the dudes who signed it were not actually the ones who voted for Independence or approved the Declaration.

Fact or Fiction BONUS: Roger Sherman (CT) is the ONLY person to sign both the Declaration AND the Constitution. Why haven't you ever heard of him before, you say? Good question.

3. Fact or Fiction: while waiting for their turn to sign the Declaration supposedly Benji told the gang: "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately." BenHa (a BIG fella) told Elbridge Gerry (a little fella): 'With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone."

Verdict: HARD TO TELL. This certainly did not happen on July 4, and while it could have happened on August 2, the story doesn't seem to appear anywhere until the 1840s (when BenHa's grandson ((BillyHeHa)) was kind of a big deal in national politics), so it is suspect. A good story though.

Why not check out the LOC page on the Declaration. And, why not join us in celebrating BOTH July 2 and July 4? Come on, ya know you want to.

more at twiigs.com...

Remembering 1776

2007-06-20T12:51:00.000-05:00

We found the following on The Charlatan Stew Collection:

"The time is particularly ripe for anarchist accounts of the American Revolutionary period and afterward. Nixon has already set researchers, paid by the government, to the task of preparing for the Bi-Centennial of the American Revolution, 1776-1976. In the works are a pro-nationalist, pro-patriotic, pro-government propaganda campaign distorting the events of the American Revolution to government purposes. An organization called the People's Bi-Centennial Commission is planning opposition to this move by the government, by making plans for what amounts to a counter-propaganda campaign by radicals.
This seems to us a good idea, worth serious consideration. How-ever, from what little is known about the People's Bi-Centennial Commission, a lot of their material is likely to be nationalistic, and at worst authoritarian Marxist-Leninism wrapped in the flag to make it palatable."

As you know we are particularly interested in both the American Revolution and how the American Revolution has been used as a rhetorical object to persuade Americans of certain truths about their role within the government. Therefore, we are intrigued by Nixon's Commission and even more intrigued by the People's own Commission. We wonder if anything ever came from it.

We have not laughed like this in quite some time.

2007-05-24T10:47:00.000-05:00

(the link is the title, above)

We think that you will like it too, enjoy!

XOXO
M.O.W.

Tommy: Nuts or Genius?

2007-05-22T10:19:00.000-05:00

We hear that while Tommy was frolicking about the French countryside that he actually found the time to speak with several local peasants. These conversations must have had a profound affect upon Tommy because he, perhaps remembering his Rousseau, wrote a very strange letter to his little apprentice J-Mad:

"The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but a place also, among the fundamental principles of every government...I set out on this ground which I suppose to be self-evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct* to the living"; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it."

In his letter Tommy used this logic to argue that debts should not be contracted for more than a generation and that lands should not be locked in the possession of one family in perpetuity. He also extended his logic to the duration of the constitution:

"It may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern as they please...Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right."

J-Mad agreed about debts & land ownership, but disagreed with Tommy about the constitution, essentially calling him a silly dreamer:

"However applicable in Theory the doctrine may be to a Constitution, it seems liable in practice to some very powerful objections. Would not a Government so often revised become too mutable to retain those prejudices in its favor which antiquity inspires, and which are perhaps a salutary aid to the most rational Government in the most enlightened age? Would not such a periodical revision engender pernicious factions that might not otherwise come into existence?"

So, those are the two positions: one side says that it is tyranny if every generation does not make or assent to the laws that they are obligated to obey. The other side says that such revision would be impractical and would lead to faction and increased instability.

As Tommy says, this is an important question that has never been resolved (nor has it ever been tried). What do you think?

more at twiigs.com...

*usufruct is a Roman legal term that means "enjoy the fruit of" without materially damaging it (i.e. the earth belongs to the living to enjoy, but not ruin).

A-Ham & the People

2007-05-18T11:56:00.000-05:00

We've just been re-reading A-Ham's 1781-1782 "Continentalist" essays and we find the following, from his second number in that series, telling, disturbing, and slightly confusing:

"The particular governments will have more empire over the minds of their subjects than the general one, because their agency will be more direct, more uniform, and more apparent."

We wonder, A-Ham, at your choice of words: how can a state have "empire" over the minds of others? And, why in 1781 do you call Americans "subjects" rather than "citizens?" The idea of a government having "empire" over its subjects makes us think of very nasty propaganda techniques. We are not pleased that you assume this relationship between the government, communication, and the people.

We get your point though: local governments have more influence over people because people feel more of a direct connection to them. The national government is an abstraction--something that a very smart scholar named Benedict Anderson will call an "imagined community" in the 20th century--while the local governments are "more apparent," and thus, the people will feel more connected to them. Yes, we get that.

But, what we cannot quite wrap our head around is how the word "empire" is used here. We have not seen others use this word in this way and we wonder if it is unique to you, or if other monarchists like yourself also use "empire" when they could easily use "influence" or "persuasion."

We are very interested in persuasion, afterall.

Founder Feud Poll: Who is the Bigger TLB?

2007-05-16T10:34:00.000-05:00

We are not sure if there are two bigger bitches than A-Ham and A-Burr: they have been spreading lies about each other, manipulating elections, making backroom deals, and generally making each other's lives hell ever since they met.

Now A-Burr shot A-Ham in a duel, whose side are you on?

more at twiigs.com...

Well Played, Tommy!

2007-05-15T09:54:00.000-05:00

This whole Shays's Rebellion thing is everywhere these days, isn't it? Everyone is so, well, freaked out, by it! We hear that the dudes at the Constitutional Convention could think of nothing else--farmers with pitchforks! anarchy! oh my!

Tommy seems to be the only one who has taken the news with any kind of perspective. He wrote to Abigail Adams on February 22, 1787: "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere."

That sounds about right!

After he had received his copy of the proposed Constitution he wrote to JA's secretary William S. Smith that he (rightly!) thought that "Our convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order." Our sources (who got a peek at the letter) said that he also said that a lack of rebellion would be "the forerunner of death to the public liberty" and that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It's natural manure."

We wonder if he has any patriots or tyrants in mind? Hmm...we could think of a few!

For not losing your mind and continuing to fight for the right of the people to defend their own liberties, we say Well Played Tommy! Keep it up, we have high hopes for you.

(We do have to mention however that some rather disturbing reports have come our way that you've been dividing your time in Paris between two women--one of whom is married and a known flirt! The other is a young girl who looks strikingly like your dead-wife, only her complexion is slightly darker. Be careful Tommy, we see you!)

Founder-Chic Fashionista Quiz

2007-05-14T10:36:00.000-05:00

more at twiigs.com...

Not-so-blind Item: We see you GM!

2007-05-13T23:55:00.000-05:00

What peg legged, hAArd-pAArtying, ladies man and writer of the Constitution's Preamble spoke more than anyone else at the Convention in Philadelphia? (and twice as often as anyone in that room would have liked him too.) He was against slavery (good!) BUT he was also solidly against giving power to the people (v. bad!)

UPDATE: Not one guess? Come on folks! Hint: his initials are GM.

GW, You May Be Cincinnatus, But You're No Democrat!

2007-05-13T18:24:00.000-05:00

GW to HenLee, October 31, 1786

In the aftermath of Shays's Rebellion GW wrote to HenLee thanking him for his observations on the civil unrest caused by the post-war economic downturn and the failure of MA to come to the aid of the beleaguered farmers of their state. GW notes:

"The picture you have exhibited, and the accounts which are published of the commotions, and temper of numerous bodies in the Eastern State,are equally to be lamented and deprecated. They exhibit a melancholy proof of what our trans-Atlantic foe has predicted; and of another thing perhaps, which is still more to be regretted, and is yet more unaccountable, that mankind when left to themselves are unfit for their own Government...In a word, I am lost in amazement when I behold what intrigue, the interested views of desperate characters, ignorance and jealousy of the minor part, are capable of effecting, as a scourge on the major part of our fellow Citizens of the Union; for it is hardly to be supposed that the great body of the people, tho' they will not act, can be so shortsighted, or enveloped in darkness, as not to see rays of a distant sun thro' all this mist of intoxication and folly."

Shocking, GW! Those farmers had no money to pay taxes because there was no money anywhere! They tried to petition the government for a redress of grievances, just like they were supposed to, but the political elite in MA didn't want to listen. What else were they supposed to do except for protest? Yet, you, HenLee, Fort Knox and JMAD all decided--thanks to the pernicious influence of A-Ham, no doubt--that Shays's Rebellion was a sign that the people were "unfit" to rule. And then...you know what you did...I'm not even going to say it.

Know this GW: we see you and we are not pleased. Bad Founder, v. bad.