Because I really don't have any other place to put this

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Which is why they made a republic, not a democracy.

Also, I think HBO added a little spin, like Jefferson calling slavery "an abomination".

Except when he's got an urge for Brown Sugar, of course.

Yeah but that's not slavery... it's BDSM 

[Golden Applesauce]

I dunno, if works of fiction like the current "John Adams" series on HBO is to be believed (yeah, I know), there was some sort of honest effort on the behalf of the gentlemen farmers to try and put some real thought into the minority question.

The federalist papers back this up.  Jefferson (I think it was Jefferson, anyway, or maybe Adams) was quite explicit about the dangers of a tyranny by th majority being just as bad as a tyranny by the minority.

The solution was to give the government (ie, the majority) limits on what it could do to the public (which includes the minority.)  Majority rule, minority rights, that kind of thing.  Which is why no matter how many of you disagree with that moron down the street you can't (successfully) petition the government to take away his printing press.

This is all in theory, of course.  In practice the US has plenty of examples in its history where the majority got carried away.

[Jenne]

Which is why they made a republic, not a democracy.

Also, I think HBO added a little spin, like Jefferson calling slavery "an abomination".

Except when he's got an urge for Brown Sugar, of course.

Yeah, I said as much when I saw that scene, too.

[Jenne]

I dunno, if works of fiction like the current "John Adams" series on HBO is to be believed (yeah, I know), there was some sort of honest effort on the behalf of the gentlemen farmers to try and put some real thought into the minority question.

The federalist papers back this up.  Jefferson (I think it was Jefferson, anyway, or maybe Adams) was quite explicit about the dangers of a tyranny by th majority being just as bad as a tyranny by the minority.

The solution was to give the government (ie, the majority) limits on what it could do to the public (which includes the minority.)  Majority rule, minority rights, that kind of thing.  Which is why no matter how many of you disagree with that moron down the street you can't (successfully) petition the government to take away his printing press.

This is all in theory, of course.  In practice the US has plenty of examples in its history where the majority got carried away.

Ah yes, The Federalist Papers.  I remember those now.  Don't remember exactly what they said--I know they were the platform for a lot of the structural governmental changes and philosophies Jefferson and his cronies were on about in the early days of the Republic.

[LMNO]

So how the hell did the Conservative Republicans get to claim dibs on them, anyway?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So how the hell did the Conservative Republicans get to claim dibs on them, anyway?

Well, Conservative Republicans do hold much more closely with the Federalist ideals than Democrats do (libertarians tend to be the closest, but they have their own set of issues).

Here's the thing, Rebublicans cover a large array of political views, esp since the Regan revolution. Currently the Republican party is made up of several smaller groups... loosely:

Fiscal Conservatives
Government Conservatives
Social Conservatives/Religious Right
NeoCons (Actually Liberal, not Conservative... go figure)

Many people fall into two of those groups, but the government conservatives are the ones that hold most closely to the federalist ideals. When you hear talk of "States Rights" or "small government" that's the Federalists. The Social conservatives, may sometimes be Federalists, but often only use the idea of Federalism to their own advantage (ala Roe v Wade). NeoCons aren't conservatives at all, as they have grown the government, grown spending and fubar'd the national debt, while invading other countries... none of which is conservatives and all of which would be considered Progressive or Liberal if not for their weird Social Conservative bent.

Of course, since the Civil War the whole issue has been moot anyway. When the founding fathers built the Republic, it was with the understanding that the States were in a voluntary association. The Civil War changed that from a voluntary association to association at gunpoint. Since then, the American people can't really be considered Free, since the federal government holds every state citizen to a contract signed by our great-great-great grandfathers. The concept of Federalism was further busted when FDR rescued the States from the Depression with the New Deal.

In the US today, most of our government is progressive or liberal compared to the original founders intent. Sometimes, in the heat of arguments on Abortion, Homosexuality etc its easy to miss... but our government (even Bush) if far more a Lefty than any of the Founders... or even Republicans from 100 years ago.

[LMNO]

Of course, since the Civil War the whole issue has been moot anyway. When the founding fathers built the Republic, it was with the understanding that the States were in a voluntary association. The Civil War changed that from a voluntary association to association at gunpoint. Since then, the American people can't really be considered Free, since the federal government holds every state citizen to a contract signed by our great-great-great grandfathers. The concept of Federalism was further busted when FDR rescued the States from the Depression with the New Deal.

Looked at in one way, this is an incredibly consice and accurate description of American Political History.

[Jenne]

In the US today, most of our government is progressive or liberal compared to the original founders intent. Sometimes, in the heat of arguments on Abortion, Homosexuality etc its easy to miss... but our government (even Bush) if far more a Lefty than any of the Founders... or even Republicans from 100 years ago.

Yeah, this is what I would have said wiffout the history lesson, so major kudos to you.

One thing to always remember vis a vis our wondrous "Founding Fathers" is that, for all their vision of this then-Utopia-and-now-bureaucratic nightmare, they were prodigiously stuck within the frames of their own subcultural bugaboos.  Especially when it came to slavery, classism and out and out have-and-have-not natures.

Their altruism, in other words, only went so far.