Why should the Founding Fathers' ideas still be relevant to Americans?

[yellow_peril]

I still say the notbale thing in this region is that there wasn't a chile, or a USA, or such, before these figures. In Poland and even Canada, you have your country, and you have someone who came along with a good idea, that people liked, and that formed your modern government, and if that idea ceases to be good, you can give up on it. In America and Chile, we didn't have a nation, we had a guy, or guys, who had a good idea, and we liked it so much we became a nation based around those ideas. So naturally, we hold those ideas to be very relavent.

This. Nowadays, American politics is so polarized that if we tried to form a brand new constitution with our current politicians, we'd probably end up fighting a new civil war.

 

[Mise]

That's an interesting suggestion, Warpus. Maybe this is something unique to the Americas. Though, your mention of the link to a revolution makes me wonder if part of the reason some of us find the ideas of our founding fathers so compelling is because they fought so hard to defend them. Many who fought alongside them gave their lives to build a nation rooted in the principles they believed in.

It is because of their struggles that we have our freedom. So we see the founding fathers as more than just legislators. They are also some of our great war heroes and the men responsible for much of the good in our lives.

I think many countries have a love of their military heroes. For the UK, perhaps Winston Churchill fits the bill. Your own revolution was relatively peaceful, and your government has, I believe, changed forms more than once since your nation's birth. So it makes sense that you would not think of your founding fathers or philosophers in the same way many of us think of ours.

Yeah, Churchill was a great war leader, and will be remembered for that for a loooooong time. But there's a reason he got voted out by a landslide in the election immediately after the war I don't think this is quite what you're saying, but if the UK analogue to the US's founding fathers is Winston Churchill, then that's pretty much proof that you guys shouldn't put all that much faith in what they believed.

 

[yellow_peril]

Yeah, Churchill was a great war leader, and will be remembered for that for a loooooong time. But there's a reason he got voted out by a landslide in the election immediately after the war I don't think this is quite what you're saying, but if the UK analogue to the US's founding fathers is Winston Churchill, then that's pretty much proof that you guys shouldn't put all that much faith in what they believed.

George Washington =/= Winston Churchill

 

[Babbler]

Well, to be fair, many of the founder father, were a bunch of intelligent guys who commented on many issues (democracy, liberty, etc.) that still are relvant today. But as posters pointed out, their role in American public life is to serve as "god" or "saints" in American public religion, as the font of the guiding principles on which public life in the United States is conducted.

Not really. A bit OT but it's pretty simple to name the founding dudes: Mackenzie, Papineau, Cartier, Baldwin, Lafontaine, Tupper, Riel, and Macdonald, and a couple of dozen others that nobody remembers.

*sigh* They're the Fathers of Confederation, and to this day nobody can agree on exactly how many there were and who should be considered one. A quick scan of Wiki says that Joey Smallwood considered himself the last Father of Confederation... I wonder if there will be others if the Territories ever achieve status as Provinces?

I always taken "Fathers of Confederation" as a meaning the guys who participated in the Charlottetown/Quebec/London Conferences So MacDonald, Cartier, Tupper, Mowet, etc. are in, and everybody else is out. But this could just be me.

3. Considering the mess Brian Mulroney, Stephen Harper, and several separatist Quebec premiers have made of things over the past few decades, would they even WANT to come back? I mean, in all this time, we STILL haven't managed to get the flippin' railroad all the way across the country!

I think they would be more trouble by the secularism, lack of the British connection and all the black and brown people around.

So perhaps this is an American (continent) phenomenon. Most countries on this landmass have had an independence movement of some sort in the not too distant past - events that still resonate with the national psyche. So maybe this isn't an American thing - maybe it's a regional thing. (maybe some latin american posters could chime in, or maybe this has already happened, i haven't read a bit of the thread)

Maybe it's a feature of state founded on revolutionary principals, and especially if they have some dominating figure. So you got the same thing going around Simon Bolivar, who has among other things, an entire freaking country named after him. I'm also thinking Atatürk fits the bill as well.

 

[Counterclaw]

Yeah, Churchill was a great war leader, and will be remembered for that for a loooooong time. But there's a reason he got voted out by a landslide in the election immediately after the war I don't think this is quite what you're saying, but if the UK analogue to the US's founding fathers is Winston Churchill, then that's pretty much proof that you guys shouldn't put all that much faith in what they believed.

A fair point! However, George Washington was not voted out by a landslide in the election immediately after his war. But my point was simply that people often love their military heroes and that this might account for some of our fondness for the founding fathers. Certainly it makes a difference to me.

Also, I'm not sure that the fact that Churchill lost an election makes his ideas wrong.
Neville Chamberlain won an election, and well, we know how that went.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I think they would be more trouble by the secularism, lack of the British connection and all the black and brown people around.

By "lack" do you mean the various steps we've taken toward being able to govern ourselves without getting permission from the British Monarch for everything? Do you think the Fathers of Confederation would have objected to the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982? Or do you mean society's feeling of disconnect to England in general?

I don't recall there being any particular emphasis on religion in the stuff I've studied re Confederation and the various Acts.

As for your comment re "black and brown people" - I don't think they'd be too bothered by that. After all, Riel worked tirelessly on behalf of the Metis people, who are part-Indian. But consider the disgusting way the Chinese immigrants were treated for a very long time - they were basically treated like garbage when it's thanks to countless numbers of them that we have our national railway. And my comment on our inability to finish said railway was in relation to that being British Columbia's price for extending Confederation out to the Pacific. They wanted the railroad extended all the way to Vancouver Island, and that never got done.

Would Macdonald, et. al be upset at the huge numbers of Chinese communities in British Columbia and the larger cities nowadays?

 

[BasketCase]

Seriously, why should Americans have to shape their political present by what people in the distant past may or may not have wanted? Who cares what they wanted?

Simple: because the American people still want these things.

If they did not want these things, they would demand that these things be removed from the U.S. Constitution--and political candidates would answer those demands (or at least promise to) in order to get elected. We are seeing none of that process--not even reaching the "promise" part. Meaning that very few Americans want to deviate from the vision of the Founding Fathers, and that you, Wiggum, are part of a microscopically small minority.

 

[Ulyaoth]

Why should I care that America was built off immigrants? What does that have to do with today's Americans that I should have to deal with foreigners now?

 

[aelf]

Why should I care that America was built off immigrants? What does that have to do with today's Americans that I should have to deal with foreigners now?

And whether people immigrate has anything to do with your personal opinion how?

 

[warpus]

Maybe it's a feature of state founded on revolutionary principals, and especially if they have some dominating figure. So you got the same thing going around Simon Bolivar, who has among other things, an entire freaking country named after him. I'm also thinking Atatürk fits the bill as well.

I agree, but I'd just like to point out that the U.S. is named after a guy who nobody cares about at all

 

[Dachs]

I agree, but I'd just like to point out that the U.S. is named after a guy who nobody cares about at all

No, the United States of America are named after the American supercontinent. The American supercontinent is named after a guy who nobody cares about at all these days but who used to be of some import.

 

[RedRalph]

Meaning that very few Americans want to deviate from the vision of the Founding Fathers, and that you, Wiggum, are part of a microscopically small minority.

What minirioty is that?

 

[otago]

Yeah, Churchill was a great war leader, and will be remembered for that for a loooooong time. But there's a reason he got voted out by a landslide in the election immediately after the war I don't think this is quite what you're saying, but if the UK analogue to the US's founding fathers is Winston Churchill, then that's pretty much proof that you guys shouldn't put all that much faith in what they believed.

Churchill a great war leader, yes he was rather good at the onward colonial soldiers theme.
His first great idea, attack Gallipoli in WW 1, whoops, did not work.
Second idea, send the Anzacs to Greece in 1941, telling them that they would see a lot of air cover, there was, all of it German.
He wanted to see if the Germans could fight in 1942 so sent the Canadians to France, they got slaughtered.
Third great idea, attack the so called soft belly of Europe by way of Italy, obviously he had never looked at a map of Italy with it's mountains and river after river.
So no, Churchill was no Wellington who was a great leader and general.
Churchill was a politician.

 

[BasketCase]

What minirioty is that?

Since you're the only person I know of who believes the things you said in your last post-to-which-I-replied, you're currently a minority of one.

 

[RedRalph]

Since you're the only person I know of who believes the things you said in your last post-to-which-I-replied, you're currently a minority of one.

But you do acnkowledge there must be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, like me?

 

[BasketCase]

No. Though, on a planet of nearly seven billion people, the odds of finding at least one other person with your same opinions is pretty good. However, the appropriate venue for demanding political change is the voting booth, and until those people start showing up in voting booths, I will give your opinion on this topic absolutely no consideration.

End of discussion.

 

[RedRalph]

No. Though, on a planet of nearly seven billion people, the odds of finding at least one other person with your same opinions is pretty good. However, the appropriate venue for demanding political change is the voting booth, and until those people start showing up in voting booths, I will give your opinion on this topic absolutely no consideration.

End of discussion.

That's me told, you certaintly taught me a lesson there.

 

[BasketCase]

Bullpuckies. You're sitting there in a huff thinking "BasketCase is such an idiot". I've been doing online arguing since 1994, I know how these threads really work.

 

[RedRalph]

Bullpuckies. You're sitting there in a huff thinking "BasketCase is such an idiot". I've been doing online arguing since 1994, I know how these threads really work.

TBH, I'm just confused. Factually, there must be at least 1m people who agree with me, but all of a sudden you are only concerned with people who can vote. The thread has generated several pages of lively discussion, which you have participated in, so you obviously think it's worth discussing. You also seem a bit unclear on what 'end of discussion' means.

Out of a matter of interest, how do 'these threads' work?

 

[dosed150]

Churchill a great war leader, yes he was rather good at the onward colonial soldiers theme.
His first great idea, attack Gallipoli in WW 1, whoops, did not work.
Second idea, send the Anzacs to Greece in 1941, telling them that they would see a lot of air cover, there was, all of it German.
He wanted to see if the Germans could fight in 1942 so sent the Canadians to France, they got slaughtered.
Third great idea, attack the so called soft belly of Europe by way of Italy, obviously he had never looked at a map of Italy with it's mountains and river after river.
So no, Churchill was no Wellington who was a great leader and general.
Churchill was a politician.

italy was still the easiest way into continental europe not due to geography but the italian military who were less well equipped and generally worse fighters than their german counterparts, and domestic opposition to mussolini was stronger than opposition to hitler
it worked didnt it italy surrendered and changed sides