"Adams v.s, Jefferson"
Just finished reading this book: "Adams v.s. Jefferson, The Tumultus Election of 1800" by John Ferling, 2004. There are some egregious errors perpetuated in this book. It is obvious that this author never actually read Adam's "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States, A Response to the Letter from John Turgot to Dr. Price" 1787-1788. Within the 1300, or fo, pages of this work, Adams spells out the clearest mechanics of a balanced Republic and provides the most exhaustive case studies to support this form of balanced government. Ferling followed the propaganda that was spread to the widely illiterate American public in 1800 by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson of the Republican party, and parroted the false representation of the work as a case for monarchy. To find a case study supporting monarchy, one needs to turn to Thomas Hobbes "Leviathan", which was both a support for monarchy and an excellent argument for freedom of religion, which James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had read and were familiar with. Adam's "Defence" was in no way a case study for monarchy. Every page is filled with historical evidence supporting a balanced triumverate constitutional republic.
For 1300 pages Adams shows over and over again examples of governmental forms that purported to support liberty, but which, owing to their structure could provide the sovereign nation with nothing but tyranny. Samuel Adams argued that government need only be divided into three branches, but John Adams provides reasons and examples why this too fails, and is no better than a simple democracy, aristocracy or monarchy. The problem being that it does not prevent all power from accumulating in one center. A true republic keeps the power divided between the three classes of people. In our society these classes are: the ordinary people, the capitalists and the government functionaries. To accomplish this, the people must control the House of Representatives, Capital must control the Senate and the government must be represented in the presidency (the executive branch). The best way to keep this divided is by a differential campaign financing system that keeps contributions for the House low, and the Senate High, and restricts Presidential candidates to a government dispensation.
I read something by Caesar recently, which rings very true."Convictolitanis increases the evil state of affairs, and goads on the people to fury, that by the commission of some outrage they may be ashamed to return to propriety." Capital is looked upon as being bereft of propriety, yet this is not what Adam Smith wrote about it in 1776. Smith showed that it was the propriety of the merchant that broke the yoke of servitude to the feudal land lords and allowed liberty to become established as the civil societies we realize today (kinda like the Japanese automobiles serving the will of the U.S. public and out pacing the barbarian american automobile boards of directors). The Capitalist, by serving the needs and convenience of the people grew wealthy at the expense of the tyrannical feudal lords who's only focus in life was exploiting the people to serve their own selfish needs. This impoverished the self-centered land lords and enriched the merchant. Both were serving their "self - interest", but the propriety of the merchant won the contest for the hearts of the people over the selfishness of the feudal lord.
Since the 1860s when Karl Marx began the trend toward condemning capital, less than a century after Smith wrote, Capital has been in the position of being increasingly isolated and estranged from the common people rather than embraced by the people as many of the products of capital indeed are. This Marxian condemnation of Capital is the means by which the propriety of the Capitalist has been undermined to the point where the modern Capitalist is 'ashamed' to return to propriety. This can never be allowed to happen in a civil society. Capitalism is what ushered in the possibility of a republic and its attendant liberty as it brought distinction to the mercantile class and the industrial capitalist class by increasing the differentiation between the capitalist and the laborer. This however is a functional differentiation not a social status or individual quality differentiation and people need to be able to accept this. We all play some role in civil society and we must accept that someone needs to coordinate our efforts.
The condemnation of John Adams by the early Republicans as pro monarchy was a powerful political move designed to prevent the republic from forming. People like Jefferson and Madison were not capitalists, they were feudal land lords. Adams and Hamilton recognized the potentials growing in industrial Capitalism in the late 1700s and struggled against the old school feudalists to institute the economic framework necessary for Capitalism to fluorish here in the United States. The feudalists were naturally opposed to all such efforts. As the Patricians of Ancient Rome were always opposed to Emperors and contemptuous of the Tribunes, since they both represented a limitation to their power. In the emerging United States, the possibility of a real republic was actually viewed, by the supposed champions of 'Democracy', as a threat to their barbarian 'liberty'. A real Republic by balancing the powers between the three natural classes of any society, equilibrate power, which is how liberty is maintained in every class. Without a constitutional republic, every imbalance of power must have a dominant faction and a subordinate faction. None of the members of the subordinate faction will enjoy liberty. The members of the dominant faction will enjoy unbridled liberty, since they become effectively above civil law. However, this will not be conducive to neoclassical profits.
This is the problem with a two party political system, there is no balance. Whichever party happens to gain power, does so at the expense of the losing party. Introducing a third party prevents this imbalance by remaining free to side with either of the other two on any issue. The goal of every participant in this triumverate is no longer to win, but to appeal to reason, which is the basis of liberty. In a triumverate, there is always a majority rule and always 2/3 or more of the nation enjoying liberty. In a two party system only 1/2 of the nation is ever enjoying liberty at a time.
A triumverate republic also has the added advantage of diffusing the focus on any one party, so a lot of the finger pointing and negative campaigning will be rendered useless politically, since the goal becomes being reasonable rather than some perverse version of moral or victorious.
Getting back to John Adams and the accusations of being pro Monarchy, one need simply look at the time and the obvious conditions he was in power under. The United States had just broken off with Great Britain and we had no history of monarchy, no hereditary kings... we were missing the third class necessary for a functional republic to work. John Adams not only was supporting all the systems necessary for industrial capitalism to emerge as a power in the United States, he was also working hard at inventing a powerful executive branch where none previously existed. Hence the bias in his efforts toward monarchy. It was not a monarchy he was after, but a monarchical or executive class. Reading his "Defence" will thoroughly convince the reader of this truth.
The problem in the U.S. today shows us that our government is still imbalanced and that it was the Jeffersonians all along working to destabilize our Republic. Promoting idiotic themes like unqualified 'democracy' and undermining real republics with accusations of monarchy shows that this faction is after absolute power and tyranny. Capitalism does not work under tyranny, since the dominant class dictates things like property ownership, the value of the money, the routes of trade the trade partners, the means of distribution and every other aspect of the economy, including who gets fresh water and who doesn't....
So, would people complain if the U.S. Senate were dominated perpetually with corporate executives and businessmen? Not if we were taught what a Republic is and how it works by our government owned education system. How do we get the tyrants to do that?
VOTE: U.S. CAPITALIST PARTY
,
For 1300 pages Adams shows over and over again examples of governmental forms that purported to support liberty, but which, owing to their structure could provide the sovereign nation with nothing but tyranny. Samuel Adams argued that government need only be divided into three branches, but John Adams provides reasons and examples why this too fails, and is no better than a simple democracy, aristocracy or monarchy. The problem being that it does not prevent all power from accumulating in one center. A true republic keeps the power divided between the three classes of people. In our society these classes are: the ordinary people, the capitalists and the government functionaries. To accomplish this, the people must control the House of Representatives, Capital must control the Senate and the government must be represented in the presidency (the executive branch). The best way to keep this divided is by a differential campaign financing system that keeps contributions for the House low, and the Senate High, and restricts Presidential candidates to a government dispensation.
I read something by Caesar recently, which rings very true."Convictolitanis increases the evil state of affairs, and goads on the people to fury, that by the commission of some outrage they may be ashamed to return to propriety." Capital is looked upon as being bereft of propriety, yet this is not what Adam Smith wrote about it in 1776. Smith showed that it was the propriety of the merchant that broke the yoke of servitude to the feudal land lords and allowed liberty to become established as the civil societies we realize today (kinda like the Japanese automobiles serving the will of the U.S. public and out pacing the barbarian american automobile boards of directors). The Capitalist, by serving the needs and convenience of the people grew wealthy at the expense of the tyrannical feudal lords who's only focus in life was exploiting the people to serve their own selfish needs. This impoverished the self-centered land lords and enriched the merchant. Both were serving their "self - interest", but the propriety of the merchant won the contest for the hearts of the people over the selfishness of the feudal lord.
Since the 1860s when Karl Marx began the trend toward condemning capital, less than a century after Smith wrote, Capital has been in the position of being increasingly isolated and estranged from the common people rather than embraced by the people as many of the products of capital indeed are. This Marxian condemnation of Capital is the means by which the propriety of the Capitalist has been undermined to the point where the modern Capitalist is 'ashamed' to return to propriety. This can never be allowed to happen in a civil society. Capitalism is what ushered in the possibility of a republic and its attendant liberty as it brought distinction to the mercantile class and the industrial capitalist class by increasing the differentiation between the capitalist and the laborer. This however is a functional differentiation not a social status or individual quality differentiation and people need to be able to accept this. We all play some role in civil society and we must accept that someone needs to coordinate our efforts.
The condemnation of John Adams by the early Republicans as pro monarchy was a powerful political move designed to prevent the republic from forming. People like Jefferson and Madison were not capitalists, they were feudal land lords. Adams and Hamilton recognized the potentials growing in industrial Capitalism in the late 1700s and struggled against the old school feudalists to institute the economic framework necessary for Capitalism to fluorish here in the United States. The feudalists were naturally opposed to all such efforts. As the Patricians of Ancient Rome were always opposed to Emperors and contemptuous of the Tribunes, since they both represented a limitation to their power. In the emerging United States, the possibility of a real republic was actually viewed, by the supposed champions of 'Democracy', as a threat to their barbarian 'liberty'. A real Republic by balancing the powers between the three natural classes of any society, equilibrate power, which is how liberty is maintained in every class. Without a constitutional republic, every imbalance of power must have a dominant faction and a subordinate faction. None of the members of the subordinate faction will enjoy liberty. The members of the dominant faction will enjoy unbridled liberty, since they become effectively above civil law. However, this will not be conducive to neoclassical profits.
This is the problem with a two party political system, there is no balance. Whichever party happens to gain power, does so at the expense of the losing party. Introducing a third party prevents this imbalance by remaining free to side with either of the other two on any issue. The goal of every participant in this triumverate is no longer to win, but to appeal to reason, which is the basis of liberty. In a triumverate, there is always a majority rule and always 2/3 or more of the nation enjoying liberty. In a two party system only 1/2 of the nation is ever enjoying liberty at a time.
A triumverate republic also has the added advantage of diffusing the focus on any one party, so a lot of the finger pointing and negative campaigning will be rendered useless politically, since the goal becomes being reasonable rather than some perverse version of moral or victorious.
Getting back to John Adams and the accusations of being pro Monarchy, one need simply look at the time and the obvious conditions he was in power under. The United States had just broken off with Great Britain and we had no history of monarchy, no hereditary kings... we were missing the third class necessary for a functional republic to work. John Adams not only was supporting all the systems necessary for industrial capitalism to emerge as a power in the United States, he was also working hard at inventing a powerful executive branch where none previously existed. Hence the bias in his efforts toward monarchy. It was not a monarchy he was after, but a monarchical or executive class. Reading his "Defence" will thoroughly convince the reader of this truth.
The problem in the U.S. today shows us that our government is still imbalanced and that it was the Jeffersonians all along working to destabilize our Republic. Promoting idiotic themes like unqualified 'democracy' and undermining real republics with accusations of monarchy shows that this faction is after absolute power and tyranny. Capitalism does not work under tyranny, since the dominant class dictates things like property ownership, the value of the money, the routes of trade the trade partners, the means of distribution and every other aspect of the economy, including who gets fresh water and who doesn't....
So, would people complain if the U.S. Senate were dominated perpetually with corporate executives and businessmen? Not if we were taught what a Republic is and how it works by our government owned education system. How do we get the tyrants to do that?
VOTE: U.S. CAPITALIST PARTY
,
posted by lou_srewlect | 9:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home