Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: This is not Heaven
“The Progressives think the Founders’ system imperfect. The Founders thought so, too. Men, they thought, are not angels. They can live well and freely, but this is not heaven.” — Dr. Larry Arnn, The Founders Key
Our Founders knew that creating a Constitution that would last through the ages was a risky business. Designing a democratic republic was a unique endeavor, and writing a document that would preserve the country for the future, no matter how well intended, was being written for men and women: flawed and power-hungry beings. It wasn’t just that the Founders were so deeply informed about human nature; they only had to look at themselves, their goals, weaknesses, limitations, and desires to know that an extraordinary document would need to be produced. As James Madison said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
Although the contributions of many of the Founders are often acknowledged, they had their problems. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and never managed finances well. George Washington, although privately decrying slavery, owned slaves and was very insecure about his lack of a college education. Benjamin Franklin was a philanderer and a less than attentive father. Aaron Burr challenged Alexander Hamilton to a duel because Burr insulted him; Hamilton was mortally wounded. These were all great men, but they weren’t perfect and they knew it.
Instead of being realistic about human limitations, there are people today who believe they can create a heaven on earth. They feel certain that if properly modified (by them, of course) the Constitution would help to create a country where men and women would reach their full potential and be perfected. These people continue to trample on not only the Constitution but on the cultural values that we hold dear and that make this country great in their efforts to create the perfect world.
The Founders knew better.
Published in Culture
This, Susan, this understanding is the foundation of American Conservatism, to me. It is the understanding that we cannot have utopia on this Earth.
Liberalism, Progressivism, Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Libertarianism (yeah it does), are all Utopian in their ideology. Somehow, we can make things perfect.
We can’t. The hard problems are hard and at best, we can hope technology will solve them.
In a flawed world, we also learn to accept each other with our limitations, to encourage others, to pitch in when people need help. What better way is there to grow in our lives, to elevate human life and appreciate the world we do live in? Thanks, @bryangstephens.
I wish that technology would help, but I see it as a two edge sword. If I want to be left alone in my house, I can install cameras, motion lights, alarm systems, etc., and even remotely monitor activity via the internet. However, unless I design my own internet access device, how can I trust that someone couldn’t use these devices to spy on me? And by doing all the above, am I advertising to the world that I have something valuable inside the house?
We have many openings in the July Quote of the Day Schedule, along with tips for finding great quotes. It’s the easiest way to start a Ricochet conversation, so why not sign up today?
In one sense, there is no such thing as being left alone anymore. Unless you want to live in a cave in the Himalayas–maybe. Sigh.
Nope, you can’t even be a hermit anymore. Look at this poor guy who was hauled off his deserted island back to civilization against his will.
Amazing. I was going to say, okay then, go live on the Moon. Nope, too late for that, too. Thanks @cbtoderakamamatoad.
The founders were futurists about human behavior. They also were students of history. The arguments during ratification sound like arguments of today.
Jefferson noted the political difference between rural and urban areas. At the founding, most people were self employed and rural life was common. Today, we are becoming urbanized, most people work for someone else. William Graham Sumner also recognized that rural people had more resources in economic distress than urban workers.
Flyover county was basically in the forefront of the founders’ understanding of the citizen, and today they are an afterthought.
Everyone should be self employed at least for a short time in their life. When you risk what you have, and have to work extra for nothing, you can learn to appreciate what you have. There really isn’t anything sure but death and taxes.
Both excellent points, @ralphie! It’s clear our lawmakers really care about getting elected, not whether they are genuinely representing us. Both my husband and I have been self-employed, at the same time! And we definitely learned to appreciate the risks, the benefits and now, what we have. Thanks!
I cringe a little whenever I hear a politician or activist saying that it’s time to “Put and end to XXX once and for all.” Could be violence against women, or poverty, or drug abuse, or any number of problems one finds in society. Because chances are, if this is a problem that has bedeviled human societies for millennia, it’s not going away once and for all. We may be able to reduce it, but we’re not going to eliminate it as long as societies are made of people.
But it’s probably impossible for a politician to say, “We’re going to bring the poverty rate down from 15% to 12%, but at that point we face diminishing returns and our resources would be better spent elsewhere.”
Good point, @mattbartle. But they can say we’ll be more aggressive in dealing with the problem, or we’re going to double our resources to address the problem . . . nah, that probably won’t happen.
@susanquinn :
I remember two things from early biographies of Franklin (but I can’t point to references, sadly)
He believed in working on improving his morals with respect to one of the virtues one week at a time. That is, this is the week to work on gluttony, next week will be for Lust and so on.
He started the first orphanage in the country…. for his 14 illegitimate children.
He was a brilliant bundle of contradictions. I read a biography about him, and his life was amazing in some ways, tragic in others. Great facts, @willowspring.
Ben Franklin’s autobiography is a great read for high schoolers studying American history.
All my students enjoy it.
I must say I enjoyed Franklin’s portrayal by Tom Wilkinson in the miniseries based on David McCullough’s book on John Adam.
Obviously, the only solution is to eliminate the “people” portion of society.
Training them to bark on demand seems to be part of the plan, as does replacing education with “grievance studies”.
Nice post, Susan.
One nit, though. Despite the past 80 years, I still believe we have a Federal republic, not a democratic one. :)
But the Leftist know that if only they could run things, we would be living in a paradise because they know what’s best for everyone. That’s why any means is justifiable if it furthers their goal; and anyone who opposes them is simply evil and not worthy of any consideration.
There’s a cave in Greece for sale with a ‘Plato Once Slept Here’ plaque on it….
Or this guy who had practically lived his entire life on the island.
Yeah, but then I’d be invaded by all the Plato groupies!
Besides, the poverty rate is an imaginary number and people who are poor include people who are poor because they don’t have enough money, people who are poor because they spend stupidly, people who are poor because they are addicts, and people who aren’t actually poor because they have assets and pensions but are unemployed and have no income per se.
My point isn’t that there are no poor, or that those that are in some way deserve to be poor. Rather it is that the poverty line is a political tool and making poor people less poor is impossible unless you know how or why they are poor.
Poverty used to mean not getting enough food. The poor in North America don’t have that problem.
This is my favorite portrayal.
No indeed. And now we have a problem with obesity. And the latest, “food insecurity.”
I’ve probably posted something like this before but my favorite claim is the statistic ‘X number of children go to bed every night at risk for hunger’.
What does that even mean?
Without their parents/guardians, since most children don’t earn enough money and/or can’t grow enough crops and/or catch enough animals to eat, the percentage is closer to 100%.
Heaven, I’m in heaven, when we’re out together twerking cheek to cheek.
Not imaginary, but fixed. It’s defined in such a way that about 20% of Americans will always be poor. And because of that, Progressives are determined to keep those already in that group there, and add to their rolls.
It’s all nonsense, as government transfers don’t count as income for the purposes of defining “poor”, so by definition gov’t programs cannot eliminate poverty”.
But as a post yesterday showed, “the poor” have an almost identical purchasing power to “lower middle class” and “middle class”.
So, despite all the sob stories and mentally I’ll walking the streets, we already have, for all intents and purposes, eliminated poverty.