Bush-Clinton Oligarchy

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...

Tommy's Farewell

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!)

Founder-Chic Fact or Fiction: Independence Edition

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...

Well Played, Tommy!

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!)