Nathan Key

Husband, Father, Thinker.

 

 
 

Using the most simple terms, The United States emerged from a rejection of tyranny.

Our founding fathers beheld, firsthand, what happened when power was left only in the hands of the few. And in reaction to this, they formed a system of government that would be held at bay by the people it governed. They created a nation that was supposed to run from the bottom-up rather than from the top-down. It was one that was supposed to provide a mere infrastructure of cohesion rather than a dictating force that informed its citizens how they should act in every situation.

They gave most of the governing authority over to the local and state communities and it was hoped that most decisions regarding behavior would spring forth from the community itself. This decision was probably due to the fact that most citizens of these States United were churchgoing folk who valued community and religious structures- there wasn't as much need for the heavy hand of government when a "higher Power" was instructing the lives of the people.

I've heard a lot of folks say that things are just too different now to maintain a limited role of Federal Government. They say that times have changed and the ideals of the founding father's aren't right for what we're dealing with now. And in three primary regards, they're right:

1. There are a lot more people living in the United States.
2. Less people are "religious."
3. Technology has changed the way we live.

I'd like to explore each of these different ideas for the rest of the week to see whether or not these changes should legitimately change the way government works. When times change, sometimes we need to change with them, so let's see if we need an overhaul of our system or a return to the original intent of our founders.

 


Comments

Chris

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:56:05

I appreciate the obvious allusion to Iran here. I said on my blog the other day (and commentators have been saying all weekend) that the Sea of Green really isn't about the election anymore. It has evolved so that people are thinking about bigger principles and seeing a chance for a different future.

 

Nathan

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:53:50

Yes! I'm glad you caught that.

I think this is a perfect time to explore our OWN revolution and whether or not we've maintained our Liberty and Ideals or strayed off into a new tyranny and dictatorship?

 

Jeff

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:37:50

Thhere's a couple things that are significant here, though: Before they were united by necissity in the opposition to England, the colonies did not at all view themselves as united. Many people thought that folks like Benjamin Franklin were a bit wonky for suggesting they might form one common entity. They differed in nearly every way imaginable, from political organization, to religious orientation, to distrubution of wealth, to forms of income.
Individuals might think of themselves as citizens of Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc, but they did not identify themselves as Americans much. Even after the Revolution, each state had its own currency and militia.
Some of the original de-centrilization of our early power is rooted in the fact that each state simply did not want to give up much of it's power.
As a result of this, our original guiding document, the Articles of Confederation, featured a nearly impotent central government. Our country nearly fell apart as a result of this impotence. The Constitution as we know it rose out of the mess created by the Articles of Confederation.

I'm not denying that the size and power of the Federal Government has risen over the last century. But a little bit of shell game goes on in these discussions, sometimes:
We focus on the early weakness of a central government and emphasize what a good thing it was. People speak and act as though we lived under The Articles of Confederation for centuries and the sudden strength of the Federal Government magically occurred in the 1950's. They talk as though that highly limited government was primarily a result of philosophical, rather than pragmatic considerations, and most of all, they act as though that early government actually worked.

 

FTP Blog

Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:00:22

If I understand what you are saying Jeff, I think I agree with you. As much as I think the constitution drafted and eventually employed was great, there were other realities that, in my opinion, when considered, seriously undermined the truthfulness and effectiveness of the constitution and the federal government it guarded. Not only that, the histories and economics that galvanized the mass movement of migrants from mostly European territories to the New World have played significantly into the history of government in the USA. For instance, the treatment of native Americans over the last few centuries surely has been for the most part unconstitutional. And let's not forget the cotton trade.
I still believe a limited role for government is applicable and should be sought; but it will not be in anyway easy. In my view, the problem is not necessarily technological, or based on census. It is simply where we are as a collective, perhaps a spiritual crisis; deep misunderstandings about the nature of life and living. The choices we make as individuals, as people in positions of immense influence and so forth.
And as far as Iran. Hmmm. I guess I wish its people all the best. It's another world, in this world of worlds.

 



Leave a Reply