Please don't make the assumption that politics in this country (or the Kennedys, for that matter) were free from the taint of money until after Jack's magical presidency. For all the high minded ideals make up our national mythology, the American Revolution was fueled by a protest over taxation. And to use an even grosser example, we fought the Civil War over slavery, an issue that the framers of the Constitution tabled because a fair number of them represented states with a vested financial interest in maintaining the institution.
"We the People" wasn't about radical philanthropy. The opening to the Constitution was a bold statement that showed that the framers wrote on behalf of the people they represented. The framers were almost all lawyers and merchants with conflicting ideals which they compromised on in order to form a nation out of a rebellion. What they accomplished is stunning, but most assumptions over the purity of their ethics are about as helpful as the contention that they intended us to be a Christian nation or that the Constitution was supposed to be static.
I disagree that simple terms are what's needed. Simple terms lead us to Sarah Palin's "death panels" or Glenn Beck's social justice as a catchword for totalitarianism. Simple terms make it unpatriotic and naive to question the application of torture. I believe that the level of discourse should be elevated, and I'll stick to the idea of informed debate regardless of what side of the aisle the argument is coming.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-03-26 04:45 am (UTC)"We the People" wasn't about radical philanthropy. The opening to the Constitution was a bold statement that showed that the framers wrote on behalf of the people they represented. The framers were almost all lawyers and merchants with conflicting ideals which they compromised on in order to form a nation out of a rebellion. What they accomplished is stunning, but most assumptions over the purity of their ethics are about as helpful as the contention that they intended us to be a Christian nation or that the Constitution was supposed to be static.
I disagree that simple terms are what's needed. Simple terms lead us to Sarah Palin's "death panels" or Glenn Beck's social justice as a catchword for totalitarianism. Simple terms make it unpatriotic and naive to question the application of torture. I believe that the level of discourse should be elevated, and I'll stick to the idea of informed debate regardless of what side of the aisle the argument is coming.