2 Comments

I voted for you, Kris.

When you say "'they' focused their starting years making sure the government was tied down and decentralized," whom do you mean? The "Founders?"

Many of the men who played vital roles in incentivizing the split from the King became very concerned by the new Constitution. It would overthrow the Articles of Confederation, which was decentralized. In its place, the new constitution would lay the groundwork for a highly centralized, intrusive, all-powerful central government -- with an especially powerful Executive.

Some of my favorite patriots are the very men (and women) opposed to the Constitution -- men like Patrick Henry, Roger Sherman, Sam Adams, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, Mercy Otis Warren, et al. They opposed for varied reasons, but most especially for the very thing it would create -- a king called "President" and power they just overthrew.

Expand full comment

That is why you need to contrast the French Revolution. You need some structures but they need to be tied down and separated to balance powers. The first Articles of Confederation failed after 17 years. Although there are lots of debate around how the Constitution was ultimately highjacked about 100 years ago, this country operated under the core beliefs for over 200. So It's my opinion we can learn a lot from what what went wrong and learn from it. But also remember what worked for years and go back to it.

Expand full comment