I am having a moment of cognitive dissonance.
I am brand new to “the Right.” In some ways, I’m only here under protest, because the Left has scampered so far Left that I can’t be there anymore. There are definitely points I’ve been “far right of center” on since early on (2A comes to mind), but those were outliers. I’ve always been into rainbows and ren faires. I still am. A good portion of my friends are gay or pansexual. Many are pagan. These days a larger portion of them are also Conservative, but that’s due to attrition and stupidity, not me.
So explain to me, please, why I am schooling conservatives on FaceBook about the Founders of our country? Chris responded to my question by telling me that most people haven’t read the things I’ve read, or read it all so long ago that they’ve forgotten, or they’re just ignorant because that’s a truism on the Right as much as on the Left (well, maybe not AS MUCH, but you know what I mean). But that should not be true.
Trump posted this on his FaceBook page:
I have to admit, I cringed when I read it. One doesn’t “ace” a cognitive exam. And it’s not … a crowning achievement. I’m glad he passed. I didn’t have any concern that he would fail. But this just looks stupid. I hate it when he makes himself look stupid. *sigh*
However, it sparked commentary. I don’t usually read the comments, because most of the people are just plain stupid. But I decided to go read today. I saw the following (names removed as I’m not asking permission):
“A requirement to be a veteran before becoming Commander In Chief would also be a good thing.”
My response was immediate: “There are a lot of very poignant and important reasons our Framers did not want that. While it would be *nice*, I could not in good conscience support any bill suggesting that it be required.” And the response to my response was basically, “Please elaborate.”
Now, the gentleman in question was not being rude. There was no name calling, but there didn’t seem to be a warm fuzzy feeling either. It was a challenge. I didn’t feel like spending 4 hours getting all my receipts together (I have them, but I wasn’t on my computer at the time and finding it all while on my phone is difficult at best). While doing that, I received this gem:
“Oh, you mean like General George Washington, Colonel James Madison, Colonel Thomas Jefferson, Lt Col Alexander Hamilton, Lt Col James Monroe, and 17 other veterans? SMDH…”
I patiently (okay somewhat impatiently, but not rudely) explained that my problem wasn’t with vets being President, it was with a requirement that the President be a vet. Now I’m getting crickets, of course. But I wanted to share my reply to the original poster:
“(Name Redacted) https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2013/07/why-founding-fathers-would-object-todays-military/66668/ … This says it better than me (tho I disagree with parts of it). But to quote one of the important bits… “The founders also, we well know, had a pronounced fear of and antipathy toward standing armies — large, permanent, professional military establishments — because of the dual temptations for domestic oppression and international adventurism by those in power, the drain on public resources, and, not least, the not-infrequent aberrant behavior of those in uniform.”
To require all presidential candidates to have served in the military would be to take power away from the citizenry. While I find a vast number of today’s citizenry to be abhorrent, it’s still my duty to give all due consideration to the Framers’ opinions on such things. I don’t believe they could have imagined today’s political climate, but they knew all forms of politics were subject to corruption. Hence why we are a constitutional Republic and not a democracy.
Or TLDR, it’s complicated but the Founders were worried about standing armies and their leaders. I suspect most had read the stories of Rome’s heyday, and wanted to avoid the trap of bread and circuses.”
I stand by my statement (and neither person has written back to me in the couple of hours since I wrote that). The Founders of this great country had just walked away from an oppressive government run by a tyrant. To insist that all Presidents going forward be military would be to exchange one tyrant for another. And while we can play nice with Britain now, at the time it was pretty touch and go.
Now… if you want to discuss requirements for VOTERS, that’s a whole other kettle of fish.
Initially, the only people who could vote in a newly formed America were white, adult males who owned property and paid taxes. Those rules were set by the States, not by the Federal government. “The framers and state leaders viewed voting as a privilege tied to independence, virtue, and stake in the community—not a universal natural right for all adults (https://theamericanleader.org/timeline-era/expanding-white-mens-right-to-vote-1787-1856/).”
Today, the bar for voters is so low that our Founding Fathers would weep. You have to be a citizen (but only 36 states require some form of ID). You have to be at least 18 years old. Most states have residency requirements, and you have to register. Felons can’t vote while incarcerated (except in a few states, where they can continue to do so), but few states restrict them from doing so once they’re back in society. Only 39 states allow a judge to take away the right to vote if someone is mentally incapable of voting (when legally adjudicated as incompetent).
Despite this deplorably low bar, only 64% of citizens voted in the last two Presidential elections… and they were considered historically unusual for the number of voters. Only about 50% of eligible voters voted in the most recent midterms.
Yes, everyone who didn’t vote is a Deplorable. And I stand by that.
How did we get here? The freest nation on earth and we can’t get 3/4 of our citizens to vote.
I like Starship Troopers (Heinlein) method for choosing voters. Only veterans can vote, but anyone can serve. If you want to serve, they’re legally bound to find a job you can do, even if that’s just greeting people at a doorway. Your service to your country buys your franchise. It means you have skin in the game. I’ve always found that to be… a good idea. It’s not a guarantee that the veteran is a better person than the general citizenry, but it’s a better indicator than what we currently have.
The Constitution does not require you to be a citizen, or even a legal resident, to vote. It may be that the states generally require that, but as far as the Constitution is concerned they are perfectly free to relax that requirement. If they allow aliens to vote for the state legislature, that automatically means they can also vote for Congress. Similarly, while the Constitution prohibits an age limit higher than 18, it does not object to a lower one.
years ago nobody cared who you were or identified as. as long as you were not infringing on others or harming others, you were an American.
identity politics (and politics in general) have fubarred this Country.
on pretty much every platform except this one I stopped reading comments because its depressing how unbelievably stupid people are.
trying to explain your point is worse than herding cats.
I don’t allow myself to get sucked into politics ever. We the People can’t fix it so beating yourself silly isn’t the answer. be happy and proud of who you are.
“So explain to me, please, why I am schooling conservatives on FaceBook about the Founders of our country?”
.
More importantly, why do you assume everyone on the right is well educated on history? As a general rule, the folks on the right tend to remember their US history a bit better, and are less likely to twist history to meet their wants, but do not assume that applies to everyone on the right. People are people, does not matter what side of the political aisle they are on.
Careful that you do not equate “wanting” with an expectation it should be done. If this individual thinks military service is a requirement to be Commander in Chief, I can support his position. However, I would oppose making it a requirement under the Constitution. For exactly the reasons you cite. Perhaps your response changed his mind. Perhaps he is even more adamant in his position.
.
You did exactly… EXACTLY the right thing. You provided information to rebut their opinion.
.
Further to the above, it is unrealistic to think everyone on the right is well versed in the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, or even any form of logic/debate. They are just as human and fallible as the left. Once again, you did the right thing, you educated them.
.
You mentioned voting. I would very much like to restrict voting. Too many uninformed people vote, too many people without “skin in the game” vote. I do not want more people voting, I want more informed people voting. I do not want people who will directly benefit from their vote to vote. (I am thinking welfare handouts)
.
I also recognize there is no way I would realistically get any of that put in place. Ever. Does not stop me from thinking it would make the country better if only informed people who positively contribute to the country were allowed to vote. And, before I get a laundry list of reasons of why I am wrong, or the founders would disagree, I already know them. This is a wish list, not an actual request.