All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are rich and well-born and the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government... Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy.
Alexander Hamilton
Hamilton wanted a President and Senate chosen for life to counter-balance the "imprudence of democracy."
The myth of America is that it's all about the inalienable rights of the common man for the common good. This couldn't be further from the truth. From the beginning, America was conceived in liberty for the land baron and wealthy merchant class.
How's it working for you so far?
It's instructive to note the famous rallying cry for revolution; The Declaration of Independence shouted about our inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Jefferson's Declaration carries no weight in law. But the Constitution does. And it's in the Constitution where the "interests" of our 'founding fathers' is clear. What are our inalienable rights according to the Constitution? What is protected? Life, Liberty or Property.
And whose life, liberty or property?
Well the Constitutional Convention did not have the representation of slaves, indentured servants, 'indians', women or men without property. And these groups did not gain Constitutional protection under the law.
During the revolutionary period, about one-third of the population comprised small farmers, but large landholders; the wealthy comprised about 3% of the population.
So fully 66% of the population was not included in the "vision" of the founders for a government of, by and for the "people." And the third that was included made up the militias to protect the 3%'s wealth when the rabble, prone to 'turbulence' fought for their rights after the revolution. See: Shay's Rebellion, The Sedition Act, the Whiskey Tax, the Order of the Cincinnati etc.
Indeed, each state passed laws about who could hold office to begin with in this great, grand experiment of 'self-governance' called America, excluding the vast majority of the people from a say in "their" government.
Indeed, the 'founders' were so afraid of the 'people' that State Power was seen as a 'divide and conquer' mechanism to prevent the rabble from organizing and fomenting change on a national scale.
In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison argued that representative government (as opposed to 'democratic') was needed to maintain peace in a society ridden by factional disputes. These disputes came from "the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society." The problem, he said, was how to control the factional struggles that came from inequalities in wealth. Minority factions could be controlled, he said, by the principle that decisions would be by vote of the majority.
So the real problem, according to Madison (and the Federalists) was a majority faction and here the solution was offered by the Constitution to have "an extensive republic" that is, a large nation ranging over thirteen states, for then, "it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other... The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular states, but will be unable to spread to a general conflagration through the other States."
Madison's argument can be seen as a sensible argument for having a government which can maintain peace and avoid continuous disorder. But is it the aim of government simply to maintain order, as a referee, between two equally matched fighters? Or is it that government has some special interest in maintaining a certain kind of order, a certain distribution of power and wealth, a distribution in which government officials are not neutral referees but participants? In that case, the disorder they might worry about is the disorder of popular rebellion against those monopolizing the society's wealth.
When economic interest is seen behind the political clauses of the Constitution, then the document becomes not simply the work of 'wise men' trying to establish a decent and orderly society, but the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privileges, while giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support.
Howard Zinn; A People's History of the United States
And today, the 2008 presidential election campaign is expected to cost more than a billion dollars, the Senate is a multi-millionaire's club and if you want a seat in the House, the people's chamber, prone to turbulence and change, you must also be a millionaire or know millionaires, raise millions of dollars and thereby prostrate yourself (because the common man lives paycheck-to-paycheck and bears mountains of debt to be repaid by law) before corporate and special interests whose sole political goal is to prevent change, unless it is a change in the tax code to increase the 'interests' of wealth built on the backs of the cheapest possible units of human labor.
And so it is also transparent when the American Colossus treads heavily with its big stick across the globe to spread 'democracy' to the Middle East and Africa and other resource rich regions 'strategically' necessary to sustain the American Way of Life, democracy is never the intention. The intention is always, and always has been, a government of elites who can be counted upon to deliver the goods to the rich and powerful at the lowest cost and to the detriment of the low born. The job of American Client State governments, comprised of dictators, tyrants and 'strongmen' military juntas is to prevent the 'mass of people' from gaining footholds to equality, justice and 'self-governance.'
America is a sham and it always has been. It is the quintessential three ring bread and circus. It is a land of milk and honey signifying nothing. America is a mechanism for the facilitation of profitable endeavors where property always trumps people. It is the Law.
So when we look at the landscape today and the look back into our own text-book past it's important to separate the rhetoric from reality, the history from the hype and the money from the minutemen.
As both political parties show their fealty to the 'money-power' and quip at each other's integrity, while feeding the beasts of war, wealth and the wanton disregard of human being, it is critical we remember, if we ever hope to achieve the reality of the rhetoric that, America is a myth.
America never was. It's not now. The question is; will it ever be?
Surprisingly, I have hope. I have a dream. Perhaps the dream is as silly as the dream of unicorns or leprechauns or cupid's arrow.
A dream of America realized; a beacon for what humanity can achieve given the chance and not a cynical ploy to fool all of the people all of the time.
Crossposted from My Left Wing