Skip to main content

Expert on lady parts and history professor too.

Rep Todd Akin:   "The Founders were really down on the idea of Democracy, they despised it, because they understood the danger of a rabble getting all excited about something and not knowing all the facts and going off half-cocked and doing the wrong thing."
humor
  Full transcript and more below the fold . . .

 

Rep. Todd Akin:     "If you go back to the days of the pilgrims and puritans, they had an awful big mouthful of tyrants and kings and they had a very very skeptical view of entrusting very much power to human beings, and so, almost in a paranoid fashion, they made what a lot of us have learned about the horizontal and vertical checks and balances, you know, the executive, legislative and judicial, in terms of federal level and then federal, local and state, so all of these things were designed to compartmentalize power and uh, to protect freedom and uh, in one of those things that's not mentioned in that list is the role of a Senator or Congressman or Liegislator, and that is that they are to use their best judgement and put principal over politics, and, um, that is one of those forms of checks and balances. The Founders were really down on the idea of Democracy, they despised it, because they understood the danger of a rabble getting all excited about something and not knowing all the facts and going off half-cocked and doing the wrong thing, and that's why the trustee was very much central to the checks and balance system, and, um, I've always believed that way because my study of the founders."
humor
    The above statement, made by GOP Rep Todd Akin a few months ago while running in the GOP Missouri Senate Primary, is so amazingly garbled and "half-cocked" I don't even know where to begin.

   

. . . "a rabble getting all excited about something and not knowing all the facts and going off half-cocked and doing the wrong thing"
   Thank you, Todd Akin, you just described the Republican Party and every Fox Viewer and Rush Limbaugh Dittohead I have ever met.

    I submit for your consideration Todd Akin, Mr: The Founding Fathers despised Democracy, didn't want stupid people fucking up America, lady parts expert, historical scholar, babbling psychopath for Senate. He votes like Paul Ryan and he sounds like Michele Bachmann. The Founding Fathers were not paranoid, Congressman Akin, YOU ARE. Nor were the Founding Fathers opposed to Democracy. That is insane.

   If you think the founding fathers didn't trust "human beings" with the power of self-government through a democratic process you don't know shit about American History. If voters have to show ID maybe politicians should have to be able to pass a basic history test that isn't approved by Glenn Beck University. Thank you, Todd Akin for reminding us what clueless, out of touch batshit lunatics the modern GOP has become. When every single ad Mitt Romney runs is a lie and Republicans believe every damned thing Fox News says I find it oddly comforting to think that some Republicans running for office really think they should take away democracy like the Founding Fathers wanted to keep the stupid people from fucking things up. I like to know what I am up against.

This is what we are up against.

humor, cartoon, teabaggers
   

   


   
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for Todd Akin, Super Genius (146+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pistolSO, Debbie in ME, whytewolf, SallyCat, AllanTBG, ontheleftcoast, absdoggy, nailbender, wyvern, itzadryheat, trueblueliberal, concernedamerican, Andrew F Cockburn, millwood, hopi13, Cinnamon, Involuntary Exile, Calouste, pat bunny, kevinpdx, gloriana, dewtx, doroma, pittie70, LillithMc, blue aardvark, elziax, MKinTN, Dumas EagerSeton, sodalis, EntrWriter, trumpeter, statsone, jfromga, sow hat, Wreck Smurfy, Alice Venturi, kerflooey, BlueInRedCincy, tekno2600, Tool, Son of a Cat, gramofsam1, RagingGurrl, sleipner, avsp, buckstop, Trotskyrepublican, p gorden lippy, Polly Syllabic, hyperstation, Rob Morse, One Pissed Off Liberal, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, shopkeeper, blue jersey mom, betson08, dzog, terabytes, Siri, xanthippe2, Pam from Calif, pioneer111, blueoasis, Buckeye Nut Schell, uciguy30, Its any one guess, science nerd, BlueOak, tomephil, mikeconwell, stlsophos, DEMonrat ankle biter, slowbutsure, Words In Action, dmhlt 66, Davui, The Rational Hatter, emperor nobody, chimpy, Vetwife, MA Liberal, KroneckerD, edsbrooklyn, middleagedhousewife, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, profh, TheLizardKing, hoolia, yet another liberal, zenox, Farkletoo, Gary Norton, bwintx, BachFan, lineatus, Guadalupe59, markdd, elengul, Tam in CA, Jim Domenico, RonV, Dumbo, OleHippieChick, Hill Jill, carpunder, a2nite, Egalitare, blue armadillo, mungley, yawnimawke, MartyM, A Man Called Gloom, tofumagoo, msazdem, Shockwave, ColoTim, rapala, Ozzie, walkshills, Matt Z, Jim R, randomfacts, Black Max, glitterscale, eru, Matilda, Onomastic, c u stageguy, Themistoclea, democracy inaction, Gorette, commonmass, ChuckInReno, No one gets out alive, tgypsy, Just Bob, Nebraskablue, Snarky McAngus, Flint, subtropolis, third Party please, luckylizard, BusyinCA, SC Lib, IamNotaKochsucker

    Regulate banks, not vaginas

    by MinistryOfTruth on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:28:52 AM PDT

  •  Un-Fragging-Believable (6+ / 0-)

    How is it that these idiots get elected by "patriots" who have a shoe size larger than their IQ?

    I'd imagine they'd be too dumb to pull a handle, punch a chad, or mark a frigging X.

    Such amazing stupidity no longer burns--I've lost all pain receptors when it comes to this sort  of thing.

    Sean

  •  Akin is also a 17ther. (36+ / 0-)

    He supports repealing the 17th Amendment that allowed the people to directly elect their Senators(before that, Senators were elected by state legislatures).

    The Founders did distrust direct democracy, but they also wanted to make sure that the government was out of religion, and religion didn't dominate the government.  Locke's fingerprints are all over the Constitution(Due Process clause is very Locke).

    Tipped and rec'd, Jesse.

    •  Figures (21+ / 0-)

      Though he was right about the founders. They really weren't keen on everyone voting. Ask the women and blacks of the 18th century what their voting rights looked like. And let's not forget the cluster fuck they gave us called the Senate which was created with the sole purpose of giving a minority the ability to stop legislation. In particular to prevent slaverly from being abolished by a simple majority vote. So, as often is the case, the wingnut took an aspect of history and warped and twisted it to fit their view.

      Romney's religion is only an issue because he's a high priest in the Church of Mammon.

      by ontheleftcoast on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:43:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hate to go there, but the Commies were the same (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        penguins4peace, mungley, Shockwave

        The "rabble" was not to be trusted with governance.   They needed the Communist Party to serve them in trust, and make the correct decisions for them.

        Sometimes the elected leaders of a direct democracy make dumb decisions.  The nice thing is that we can correct the problem during the next election cycle.

        Tradition says that God gave us choice. Some of His disciples act like it is up to them to remove it. ~ kjoftherock

        by catwho on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:21:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lenin thought the rabble wouldn't go far enough (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Shockwave, KVoimakas, catwho

          At the time of the Russian Revolution, card-carrying communists were one small faction among many and there was a real chance that that the new Russia would be a representative democracy with unions, a welfare state, only token redistribution of land, and the Orthodox Church left more or less intact.  The communists thought that this would destroy any chance of a true socialist revolution as it would satisfy the basic demands of the working class while leaving capitalism and the "opiate of the masses" essentially untouched and free to corrupt the new state.

          Judging from our own experience he might have been right.

          The communists believed that the proletariat was so hopelessly brainwashed that they would never choose communism no matter what they had to gain from it or how functionally or morally superior to capitalism it was, so it fell to the "revolutionary vanguard" to drag the unwilling masses behind them and teach them to be communists.

          To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

          by Visceral on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:46:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not originally, (0+ / 0-)

          Originally the CP had anarchists etc in it...

    •  much agreed. Founders envisioned representative (0+ / 0-)

      democracy, which we have to this day.

  •  Akin is mostly wrong (31+ / 0-)

    but there is a kernel of truth in his half-baked assertions.

    The Founding Fathers believed in representative democracy, but one that had a lot of checks and balances. These exist to this day.

    -- The made sure power was decentralized within the federal government
    -- The created significant powers for individual states that made them able to have different systems and undertakings
    -- They made the Senate with six-year terms, and appointment by state legislatures rather than voters
    -- They accepted limitations of voting to pretty much only European-race males, and allowed states to restrict much further
    -- They adamently opposed referenda

    The fear of the rabble was increased after the populist post-Revolution Shay's Rebellion, which terrified the writers of the Constitution.

    The irony of Akin's incomplete comments though is that what he is suggesting they were trying to prevent was a movement like the Tea Party.

    •  But Not Enough Checks & Balances. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shockwave

      Which is why while we've never had a full blown imperial presidency, we've certainly had a number of criminal presidencies. There's no effective check on it if the exec wants to go that way.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:00:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not anymore, no (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shockwave, Nowhere Man

        but in the beginning, the president WAS nothing more than the office who was responsible for "executing" the laws passed by Congress.  In reality, the history of the american political system is one of the ever-increasing powers of the president so much so that now, we believe it is the president who should set the direction of the country and congress be the ones to pass what the office wants.

        This is pithy and humorous, and makes you like me even more.

        by pholkhero on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:17:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Akin is mostly wrong, Seanflynn mostly right. (5+ / 0-)

      Akin's statement is a hopeless muddle, and Tea-partyism IS exactly the kind of movement the framers of the Constitution feared. However ....
      The term democracy did have a negative connotation,  until Andrew Jackson's day. Even Thomas Jefferson didn't use it. It's ironic now that the Republicans think we're taking unfair advantage by calling ourselves the Democratic Party; they call us the Democrat Party instead. It's ironic because originally, The Democracy was a pejorative term, used by Jackson's opponents. Now we take justifiable pride in calling ourselves Democrats.

      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

      by Blue Boomer on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:39:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "The irony...is that they were trying to prevent.. (0+ / 0-)

      ...a movement like the Tea Party."

      ...or Occupy, for that matter.

      And the government is still trying to do that to this very day.

      Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

      by Words In Action on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:40:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Akin is probably referencing Puritans (14+ / 0-)

    and Massachusetts Bay Colony.  They really wanted to be Puritans.  No dissent allowed. Anyone that disagreed with the puritan founders were exiled to Providence (RI).

    Lots of people disagreed with the 'founding fathers' of MBC...

    Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing.Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1841

    by SallyCat on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:42:06 AM PDT

  •  Would that be why (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trueblueliberal, Cedwyn, mconvente

    they left us with a Republic?

  •  I think he's making a "17th(?)er" argument (9+ / 0-)

    About taking away direct election of Senators  After all it's probably cheaper to buy a legislature (which did happen, and led to that amendment) than to buy an election.

    We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

    by Samer on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:47:26 AM PDT

  •  Well... (8+ / 0-)

    ...when one of these lunatics speak, I always like to pick out my favorite lie (because there are always a crapload to choose from):

    Here is my today's favorite:

    I've always believed that way because my study of the founders.
    This asshole have never studied the founders.

    He doesn't even know what a founder is.

    They always say shit like this to impress their hayseed constituents.

    As if a guy who has a 6-year-old's grasp of sex education has ever studied anything, must less the founders.

     

    Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate. ~ Proverbs 22:22

    by wyvern on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 11:48:33 AM PDT

  •  He's not entirely wrong (9+ / 0-)

    There certainly was among many of the founders a fear of 'the masses' of poor people voting because they thought such people couldn't think rationally ("rational" being defined as not challenging the status quo).

    That's why early on the vote in most places was restricted to white men who owned a certain amount of property or had a certain level of wealth.

  •  There's a 45 Year Record of Plenty of Voices (4+ / 0-)

    warning what these people believe and how they are going to govern.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:02:39 PM PDT

  •  Keep talking Todd (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick, Shockwave

    PLEASE. I thought our chances were pretty good before, but now? I'm feeling even better.

    I'm not saying we can coast into November, we definitely still need to work. But wow...

    Move your money from the greedy big banks, join a community bank or credit union. Need help finding a credit union? Find a Credit Union

    by BlueInRedCincy on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:07:51 PM PDT

  •  He's not completely wrong (8+ / 0-)

    A lot was written concerning the debate between Hamilton and Jefferson about who should be involved in government. Hamilton did want to limit government involvement to the "elite" while Jefferson advocated everyone should have a voice. I don't know if this is what Akin is referring to but it is fact that Hamilton at least favored limiting government participation.

    •  Ah, the founder of American conservatism (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LillithMc

      His legacy lives on today with GOP voter suppression.

      Meanwhile, the party of Jefferson continues to advocate for increased ease of voting.

      "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

      by Quanta on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:27:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How would the nations of the world react (5+ / 0-)

    if we went around waging war "to spread Republicanism"?

    Even Republican Presidents resort to defending our wars as "spreading Democracy".

    Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

    by Words In Action on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:22:00 PM PDT

  •  the founding fathers also built (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kerflooey, trumpeter, OleHippieChick

    into the rules of law mechanisms that permitted change.

    The changes since then that have happened for the most part have been good changes, it's only been up until about the last decade that the direction of change has gone bad.

    And the repug party is all about bad changes.....

  •  Irony, thy name is hilarity... (9+ / 0-)
    "The Founders were really down on the idea of Democracy, they despised it, because they understood the danger of a rabble getting all excited about something and not knowing all the facts and going off half-cocked and doing the wrong thing."
    You mean sort of like Todd Akin?

    Horse prom is black tie muthaf**ka - Jon Stewart

    by EntrWriter on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:23:12 PM PDT

    •  As if an organized group of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OleHippieChick, LillithMc

      1%ers and their shills won't get all excited without knowing all the facts and go off half-cocked and do the wrong things?

      What do you call the entire Iraq War?

      Supply-side economics?

      Not only will they, they DO, over and over.

      Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

      by Words In Action on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:48:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So who edited the Constitution? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xanthippe2, Just Bob

    Why does it say 'We the People', instead of 'We the Rabble'?

    I'm no philosopher, I am no poet, I'm just trying to help you out - Gomez (from the song Hamoa Beach)

    by jhecht on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:24:45 PM PDT

  •  I'll donate $5 to the Keep-Akin-Running-his-Stupid (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    p gorden lippy, OregonOak

    -Piehole-Fund. If we can just keep the stupidity flowing, I think maybe Democracy might still have a chance.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:30:31 PM PDT

  •  Madison's Federalist #10 (5+ / 0-)

    One of Madison's key points in Federalist #10 was that domination by a single faction was an ever-present danger in republics, but the size and extent of a federal system diminished this danger. No extremist faction would be strong enough to dominate a republic of continental scale. I guess he didn't anticipate Rush Limbaugh and Faux News.

    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

    by Blue Boomer on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 12:47:56 PM PDT

    •  The battle goes on (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Just Bob

      Rush and the right haven't won this thing yet.  In fact, I do believe 2010 may have been their high water mark.

      "It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said." "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain

      by Quanta on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:49:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  To a certain Point he is Correct (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    condorcet, Cousin Vinny

    The Government we live in is not a True Democracy The United States government is actually a Republic, some would specifically call it a Federal Constitutional Republic.
    Here is what some of the founding fathers wrote and said: Sorry if someone already posted them.

    Thomas Jefferson, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
    Thomas Jefferson, March 11, 1790: "The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind."

    Alexander Hamilton: "Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government."
    Alexander Hamilton, in Senate: "It has been observed that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny: their figure deformity."

    John Adams, in a letter to John Taylor, wrote: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

    James Madison said: "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

  •  its amazing how many people (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    condorcet, jakedog42, Catesby

    think he's wrong.  A great many of the founding fathers didn't believe in the ability of people to make decisions regarding law ~ hence a representative government.  And not just a representative government, one that had extreme limits on the power of the people.

    In the beginning, men could only elect the reps to the house.  The senate was elected by state legislators, the president was chosen by electors, SCOTUS by the president.

    what's more, there were a great many colonial tories who initially saw it as a small group of people leading the entire colonies into war without the full backing of the people.

    the diarist makes claims about the founding fathers, but offers no documentation.  go back and read the federalist papers (and notice, it was the federalists who won ~ those who wanted to take power from teh local governments ~ those directly elected by the people of the time).  In fact, go back and read the entire political history of america.  who elected the members of the continental congresses before the war?  who elected them afterwards to write the constitution??  it certainly wasn't democratic (and here, i just mean not even ALL the men voted who to send).

    This is pithy and humorous, and makes you like me even more.

    by pholkhero on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:27:50 PM PDT

  •  "the rabble" = "you people" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jakedog42, a2nite

    You little ineffectual shits, how dare you want to vote and stuff!

  •  In fact, he's right. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    If you read the Federalist Papers or the writings of the more influential drafters (James Madison, John Jay, etc.), they were explicitly worried about not giving the lower orders too much direct power. Hence the provision, only amended in the 17th Amendment, of Senators being elected by state legislatures, or the electoral college, etc., etc. In John Jay's classic formulation, the owners of the country should government. They were terrified that unpropertied workers would, if given the chance, strip the propertied elite of their privileges.

    "When the intellectual history of this era is finally written, it will scarcely be believable." -- Noam Chomsky

    by scorponic on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:35:18 PM PDT

  •  akin is basically right. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cousin Vinny

    the word democracy generally meant mob rule, probably following aristotle.  aristotle contrasted democracy with polity.  polity was the good form of rule by many; democracy was the bad form of rule by many.

    .......

    i don't know how the reverse could be argued.  founders only allowed free, property-owning white men to vote (with a couple of unusual exceptions).

    it is easy to find quotes of founders, even the very liberal ones like jefferson, speaking negatively about democracy.  during the presidency of john adams, "democratic clubs" were widely suspected of wanting to bring the french revolution to US.

    senate was designed not only to represent states, but also to restrain the general public (even though most of the general public could not vote).  house of representatives represented the public, senate represented the elite (appointed by state legislatures).

    romanticism of the "founding fathers" is extremely excessive.  US of the founders was based on near-genocide of native americans, slavery, white supremacy, patriarchy and political elitism.

  •  On this one, he's largely right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jakedog42

    Many of the chief architects and advocates of the U.S. Constitution (such as Madison and Hamilton) were deeply distrustful of popular self-government.  In designing the constitution, their goal was establish a republican form of government (ie., non-monarchical and limited) while shielding that government from what they considered the whims of public opinion.  (They were especially leery of anything that might impair contracts or absolve debtors of their obligations.)

    This suspicion of popular self-government explains why neither the President nor U.S. Senators were orginally elected directly by voters.  It also explains why they so fragmented the legislative power as to make it almost impossible to enact coherent legislation, a problem we still struggle with to this day.

    Of course, there were other "founders," such as Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, who spoke much more favorably of popular self-government, though in Jefferson's case he thought the capacity for self-government was limited to white people.  (And neither Jefferson nor Paine were at the constitutional convention, though Paine did support the ratification of the constitution.)

    The bottom line is that matters of freedom, equality, democracy, and justice have been contested throughout U.S. History-- there is no immaculate conception to be found via history.

  •  Republicans' idea of democracy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    createpeace, icemilkcoffee

    only white male heterosexual "Christians" of European descent, whose first language is English and who own real property can vote.  

    Feminism is the radical notion that women are people. ~Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler

    by Tchrldy on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:48:38 PM PDT

  •  So Akin thinks "the pilgrims and puritans" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zenox, icemilkcoffee, OleHippieChick

    were the Founders, huh. That would likely make Tommy Jefferson's head asplode.

    Liberals: Taking crap for being right since before you were born. - Driftglass (and the amazing Professional Left Podcast at http://professionalleft.blogspot.com/)

    by briefer on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:50:23 PM PDT

  •  As Bill Maher concluded recently, having (0+ / 0-)

    examined the Voter ID laws, is that Democracy is not about everyone voting, it's about the Right people voting.

    Which is really what a Republic is about.

    The question that lies before America today is: should this Republican election process have a racial bias?

    Purging predominantly minority voters and requiring them to present IDs to vote in the face of VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT VOTER FRAUD is RACISM! I hereby declare all consenting Republicans RACISTS until they stand up and object to these practices!

    by Words In Action on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:52:06 PM PDT

  •  OMG, MoT, I thought you were interpreting or (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zenox

    paraphrasing, but no, he actually said that!

    The Founders were really down on the idea of Democracy, they despised it, because they understood the danger of a rabble getting all excited about something and not knowing all the facts and going off half-cocked and doing the wrong thing
    How is this moron in a close race with Claire McCaskill? (I know, I know, it's Missouri.  I used to take the bus back and forth between Columbia in the middle, and either St. Louis or KC.  I have seen what is in between.)

    "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

    by middleagedhousewife on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 01:54:41 PM PDT

    •  The people have to be considered a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      middleagedhousewife

      rabble in order to justify keeping them in line.  If there are to be superiors and rulers at the top of the "natural" hierarchy, then there have to be inferiors.

      If we want to be equal, then we all get to be niggers now. If we don't appreciate our special status, then we can all be equally deprived, starting with the women folk.  Besides, there's plenty of men folk who will appreciate getting the women back in line.

      Playing factions off against each other is a clever ploy. Having 51% of the population single and unattached helps.  As any predator knows, the laggards or outliers are easier targets.

      Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage". He's not into "catch and release."

      by hannah on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:48:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rabble that doesn't know the facts (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick

    That's really funny.  Who's he talking about?  Congress?

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:08:53 PM PDT

  •  "not knowing all the facts and going off half-cock (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick

    Akins would know all about that.

    •  It's funny that the instinct-driven (0+ / 0-)

      see themselves in other people, but don't recognize themselves. I suppose that's why Narcissus fell in love with his own visage, but didn't know it.
      Self-centered humans seem to be a pretty standard variable.

      Perhaps some of their senses aren't working.

      Steven King says he "never heard."  Does that suggest that he gets all information aurally and doesn't read?  
      And Willard admits that he doesn't read the documents he signs.

      Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage". He's not into "catch and release."

      by hannah on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:55:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Shit from Shinola (0+ / 0-)

    The TeaPublicans really are the Know Nothing Party. First, because they have no interest in sex ed, Akin and fellow conservatives are comically wrong on female reproductive biology and equally ignorant about history too.

    I think GOPers will say anything they think makes the US more like a Christian nation, no matter how stupid it actually sounds to the non-Jeebus crowd.

    Basically, they are going all Costanza and just immediately saying something that is pertinent to the discussion at hand. "My father's gay"..."My uncle was an alcoholic"...and so on.

  •  Great discush, but missing something (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Musial, OleHippieChick, terabthia2

    As many commenters above argue, the founders were dubious about democracy in its purest forms.  BUT:

    1.  Madison wanted a much more representative system than we got.  He wanted a proportionally representative House of Reps that would then appoint the Senate.  He was forced to compromise on a Senate that gave each state equal representation, which has perennially given a regressive minority the power to block progress.

    2.  The Revolution unleashed a vast tide of democracy.  Many states reduced property qualifications on the vote to where they were almost nil.  Or at least very low.  Even in the colonial era, a very high proportion of white males could vote.  Some estimates are as high as 70% of adult white males (because basically all you needed was a small farm or to have paid taxes, and that was nearly universal).

    3.  More on the tide of democracy:  the Revolution loosed a storm of interest in politics.  Ordinary white males wanted very much to participate, even if they had not done so in the past.  That is what scared delegates to the Constitutional Convention.  The state legislatures were pumping out paper money and undermining contracts, thus favoring debtors over creditors.  So, while it may be true that the delegates were "anti-democratic" to some extent, the majority of founders--the American people--were not.

    4.  Just because the founding generation did not give the vote to slaves and women should not be a reason to dismiss the project as undemocratic.  You can only have so much revolution at any one time.  They had to compromise again and again, which meant that slaves would remain slaves (despite emancipationist sentiment among Northern delegates as well as those from Virginia.... Damn Jefferson for his racism, but he did oppose slavery, as did George Mason and George Washington.  And John and Abigail Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, and many more).  If the framers had not allowed slavery, South Carolina and Georgia would have bolted, thus undermining everything inviting Britain, or France, back into the picture.  The U.S. would have been destabilized.  Plus, the North at that time lacked the power to win a civil war.  Virginia was the largest state in the union, in terms of population and land both.  Even though many Virginia elites opposed slavery, others did not.  In short, those who opposed slavery simply could not win a war, if it came to that, and had to await the historical moment that came in 1860.

    5.  The democratic storm touched off by the Revolution continued into the era of Jackson, then into the Civil War, and then into the twentieth century.  Only now is it being turned gradually back by those who seek strict voter ID laws (in the spirit of those who sought grandfather clauses and poll taxes and literacy tests in the past).

    We will always be fighting about who gets to vote.  Always.  But it is not true that we were founded as an undemocratic nation.  We were simply fighting about how far democracy would go.  And continued to fight about that for the next 250 years.  We fight about it because we ARE democratic.

    •  The founders were concerned (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doc durango

      to prevent failure of the republic. The threats to democracy identified in Washington's Farewell Address, and again in TR's Osawatomie speech, are now ascendant. The most significant structural departure, perhaps, has involved the plutocratic restoration led by Justice Powell and successors.

  •  Actually not far from the truth. (0+ / 0-)

    There were radicals like Thomas Paine among our founding fathers but most were suspicious of Democracy which is why we are a republic not a Democracy. The right to vote was restricted and we have an institution called the electoral college to decide Presidential elections because of the fear of what Jefferson  called a "mobocracy".

    ",,, the Political whorehouse that is Fox News." Keith Olbermann

    by irate on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:48:32 PM PDT

  •  He's right; they wanted democracy for themselves (0+ / 0-)

    ONLY, because that is what happened. Democracy is for evil greedy rotten rich people Only, " the people, not so much.

    Fuck the founders who thought freedom meant free to own human beings.

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:50:31 PM PDT

  •  The only people despised Democracy.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terabthia2

    were the Loyalists.  
    Republicans of today would have been Loyal to the King of England.

    It was the Liberals 1776 who dreamed, articulated, wrote and fought for our Democracy.  

    You can't change the world, but you can change the facts, and when you change the facts, you change points of views, when you change points of views...you can change a vote, and when you change a vote............you can change the world

    by progresso on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 02:51:00 PM PDT

  •  Oversimplification (0+ / 0-)

    Alexander Hamilton, for instance, was a great admirer of the British political and imperial system.  He wanted an independent United States, but he wanted a United States that was modeled as closely as possible on the British system of the time, with its House of Lords, its highly restrictive voting rights, its commercial empire, and its close alliance between the state and financial interests.

  •  Prediction: Since Akin is not getting out, (0+ / 0-)

    the Republicans will field and support an independant candidate, a la Joe Lieberman in Conn. several years ago.
    Not sure if it will work for them.

  •  It's a Republic..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kingfishstew

    ....strictly speaking. And so, he is right. They did not approve of direct democracy. That's American Idol. Want that?

    Even a pig can find an acorn every now and then and I am afraid he is correct on this.

    If you hate government, don't run for office in that government.

    by Bensdad on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:03:08 PM PDT

    •  True, although Republics can come in different (0+ / 0-)

      flavors. I'd prefer a Democratic Republic to an Oligarchical Republic.

      Athough, people tend to use the term Democracy rather broadly these days to include any system in which the average person has reliably consistent influence on their government through the ballot box.

  •  Wishful thinking. That's what Akin and his clan (0+ / 0-)

    are into.  They want to create a world in their own image, as they imagine they want it to be. They're imitators and so they want to imitate what the bible tells them about the origin of the world. They've got an idea and want to make it real.

    The instinct-driven are also very literal in their use of language.  So, for example, in the word re-public, the first syllable stands for "rex" -- again, what they'd like to be, a king chosen by the people. Rex populis, which is very similar to what was written and charged to Jesus of Nazareth, but which he rejected quite firmly by saying his kingdom was not of this world.  Which leaves an opening to be filled and just happens to be consistent with their grandiosity.

    What all of these people have in common is that they appear very full of themselves, for no apparent reason.  Their skills, if they have any, seem mostly of the talkative kind.  They can tell stories and they can tell lies.  Which is actually really easy when you don't know anything. They make stuff up and, if people believe them, it's their fault. Because nothing is the fault of people directed by good intentions or basic instincts.  And they really resent when their basic instincts and doing what comes naturally is judged to be wrong.

    After all, the golden rule says to do to others what you want done to you.  So, if you want to have sex, why should it be wrong if the person you want to have it with doesn't?
    I think the most telling part of Akin's explanation is his conclusion that there should probably be "some punishment" for rape.  SOME!

    Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage". He's not into "catch and release."

    by hannah on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 03:23:39 PM PDT

  •  GOP/right wing/Tea Party explained: (0+ / 0-)

    When the majority believes something they don't like they call it "Mob Rule".

    When the majority believes something they DO like they call it "The Will of the Majority".

    I suppose, in all fairness, we should admit that our side can, and does, fall into the same trap, too at times. But NOWHERE near the level of the right. Their hypocrisy and inconsistency on this is just laughable, if very predictable. I see it ALL the time.

  •  Not just wrong - Akin's making up this shit (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Harm
    "If you go back to the days of the pilgrims and puritans, they had an awful big mouthful of tyrants and kings and they had a very very skeptical view of entrusting very much power to human beings, and so, almost in a paranoid fashion, they made what a lot of us have learned about the horizontal and vertical checks and balances, you know, the executive, legislative and judicial, in terms of federal level and then federal, local and state, so all of these things were designed to compartmentalize power
    The pilgrims did not "make what a lot of us have learned about. . . [checks and balances]"

    The pilgrims did not come up with a form of government made of an Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch.  
    It is likely that most Pilgrims had never heard or imagined such of thing, much less cared if they had one.

    The pilgrims did not ever advocate or care about "federal" vs. "state" authority or the relationship between states and a federal government. Neither existed when they landed on this continent.

    Attributing the "Founding Fathers'" ideas about government, to the Pilgrims, demonstrates Akin's historical ignorance.

    He is an avowed misogynist, this much is clear.  The bigger issue is that the guy is dumb, in fact, he is frightfully stupid.

    sláinte,

    cl

    Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

    by Caoimhin Laochdha on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 04:42:40 PM PDT

  •  By his definition, he's the reason founders (0+ / 0-)

    were against democracy, people acting like idiots, acting on bad or no information, as you so well pointed out, MoT.

    going off half-cocked and doing the wrong thing."
    What an a-hole. And how utterly sad for Missouri! What ever happened out there in the middle of the country for this guy to be a representative of them? Poor, poor Missouri.

    "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

    by Gorette on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 04:48:06 PM PDT

  •  Jacksonian Democracy, Mega-Banks, and Genocide (0+ / 0-)

    Many of the commenters on this thread seem to agree that the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 marked a significant transition away from the aristocratic republicanism of the Constitutional Convention and in the direction of something more like popular democracy.

    "He fought politically against what he denounced as a closed, undemocratic aristocracy," says Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is a very democratic source!

    And...

    Jackson fought a war with the one and only mega-bank of his era! And he fought it all the way to the bitter end, killed the monster, and dismembered the corpse!

    So far so good!

    But he also signed the Indian Removal Act into law on May 28, 1830.

    This wasn't the beginning of the Native American Holocaust, but it transformed what had been a gradual erosion of Native American rights into an avalanche of annihilation.

    A few brave souls opposed this abomination... Abraham Lincoln and Davy Crockett!... but it was wildly popular with most of our newly empowered citizenry, and Andrew Jackson was triumphantly re-elected in the landslide of 1832.

  •  What he's doing is not technical; it's confederate (0+ / 0-)

    Look, his object -- or the object of the individual whose hand is up his back pulling the string ("As the prompter breathes, so the puppet squeaks") -- is not to be right or wrong about the "founding fathers."
    1. There are no founding fathers. There were various people at work on the Declaration, the Continental Congresses, and yet others involved in the drafting of the Constitution. To lump a few hundred together under a label like "founding father" is moronic.
    2. The argument (anti-17th, anti-13th, hyper-10th) is the argument of the Confederate States of America. The C.S.A. believed in aristocracy and republican representation, and they believed in regionalism and ethnic divisions (incl. the northern colonies being a different race from the southern ones).
    3. The British thinkers were horrified by democracy, because they would tar it with the brush of "mob rule." Samuel Johnson's answer to the Boston tax complaints, "Taxation No Tyranny," goes straight for that line (as well as what we would say today: you get the army to protect your territory, and you're going to have to quarter it and pay for it). (Of course SJ's argument is a fail, too, because the moment he says "you people" should pay for the army more than "we" back home because it secured "your" territories, he is essentially granting a separation and a difference in status that validates the American complaint.)
    4. The Constitution was against plebicites and set up balances that were intended to keep things like the TEA Party and Citizens United from happening.

    So, let this guy say this or that about "founding fathers" -- with the run of them from Button Gwinnett to Benjamin Franklin, you'll find at least one of them saying it -- it's not germane: his argument has to stand up on its own, and not on ipse dixit or argument by tradition.

    Money is a snare set by those whose prey is humanity.

    by The Geogre on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:11:14 PM PDT

  •  Governance varied among the colonies (0+ / 0-)

    and it varied over time.  It's expecially interested to note how the Massachusetts Bay colony was governed:

    The colonial charter was one designed for the management of a corporation, and the needs of the colonial government did not always fit well into this model. The result was that the government began with a corporate organization that included a governor and deputy governor, a general court of its shareholders (known as "freemen"), and a council of assistants similar to a board of directors,[36] and ended with a governor and deputy governor, a bicameral legislature that included a representative lower house, and a body of freemen, a subset of the colony's adult inhabitants, who were authorized to vote in elections.
    Corporate government is a straight-line hierarchy, lacking compartmentalization.The earliest Bay colonists found that unworkable.

    The Plymouth colony took a different approach.

    The General Court was both the chief legislative and judicial body of the colony. It was elected by the freemen from among their own number...
    That sounds neither radical nor obsessed with compartmentalization.

    Mr. Akin conveniently forgets that the English were not the only people to establish colonies in North America and some people were here to greet them. Over the next hundred and fifty years, ideas from each of the groups were exchanged.  Finally, the colonists rebelled, not so much because they objected to the laws and government of England, but because they were denied many of the rights of Englishman in the homeland.

    Speak the truth, but ride a fast horse.

    by Deep Harm on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 05:30:42 PM PDT

glitterscale, hyperstation, SallyCat, Matilda, Gareth, sponson, chimpy, Cedwyn, Serendipity, tomephil, EntrWriter, pat bunny, MKS, MA Liberal, hoolia, yet another liberal, betson08, walkshills, mungley, TexasLefty, Black Max, nailbender, marina, subtropolis, democracy inaction, Alice Venturi, Flint, dewtx, Gary Norton, eru, majcmb1, SaraBeth, Pam from Calif, Sun Tzu, jcitybone, blue jersey mom, markdd, Tool, Jim R, hlee1169, emperor nobody, Debbie in ME, Themistoclea, Gorette, Yellow Canary, Son of a Cat, blueoasis, profh, AllanTBG, One Pissed Off Liberal, tgypsy, ColoTim, gloriana, LillithMc, millwood, carpunder, hopi13, pioneer111, Wreck Smurfy, uciguy30, GeorgeXVIII, trueblueliberal, Assaf, wyvern, OleHippieChick, Tchrldy, Involuntary Exile, Prute Advisory Board of California, Buckeye Nut Schell, lineatus, Its any one guess, tofumagoo, Tam in CA, luckylizard, A Man Called Gloom, Guadalupe59, dmhlt 66, dzog, statsone, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, prettygirlxoxoxo, Nebraskablue, BlueInRedCincy, shopkeeper, followyourbliss, elziax, kevinpdx, Keith Pickering, KenInCO, sfarkash, jfromga, Leftcandid, Words In Action, BlueOak, commonmass, KroneckerD, p gorden lippy, icemilkcoffee, flitedocnm, gramofsam1, catwho, Polly Syllabic, elengul, kenwards, ericlewis0, Onomastic, Hill Jill, CoExistNow, trumpeter, PorridgeGun, createpeace, whytewolf, The Rational Hatter, Andrew F Cockburn, randomfacts, Vatexia, RockyMtnLib, zenox, stlsophos, Metalman68, DEMonrat ankle biter, Davui, No one gets out alive, sow hat, TheLizardKing, pistolSO, Siri, Rob Morse, a2nite, Farkletoo, Trotskyrepublican, JGibson, jan4insight, radical simplicity, Nztorg, BusyinCA, MartyM, pittie70, doroma, wxorknot, avsp, CalBearMom, poopdogcomedy, The Hamlet, IamNotaKochsucker, itzadryheat, paccoli, SC Lib, Jim Domenico

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site