Richard Belzer: The Death of Conservatism, Part 2

[marmar]

from HuffPost:



Richard Belzer

The Death of Conservatism, Part 2
Posted September 14, 2007 | 03:00 PM (EST)



What do you get when 55 rich white landowners gather to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure 
domestic tranquility? A system that to this day protects the interests of the very rich! One of the main reasons George Washington was chosen as the first president was because he was in fact the richest man in the country (from hemp farming among other things) and was expected to protect the interests of the elite.

This entailed slavery, not empowering women, defining Native Americans as savages, blacks as barely human, and ensuring that only landowners could vote. Suppression of the poor and 
disenfranchised was endemic to the system. To this day (particularly) the so-called Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of corporate interests and against the individual in case after case. They've also ruled against affirmative action -- ignoring years of systemic racism that still exists to a disturbing degree. Several members of the current High Court are aggressively (and some would say heartlessly) determined to further empower the powerful and diminish -- and in some cases ridicule -- the rights of the people. We the People.

To be continued...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-belzer/the-death-of-conservatism_b_64460.html

[melody]

1. I love the Belz but when he starts dissing the founders

I'm sorry, it pisses me off.

They may have been 55 rich white landowners, but they didn't all think or act with the morals
of the people he presumes them to be. Some were men like Benjamin Franklin and John Adams.

[Mr Rabble]

2. With all due respect Melody-

You might want to read the constitutional convention to get a better understanding of who the founders were.

The following is a perfect example:

‘In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body.’

Just allow yourself to let the meaning of that sink in.

Protect the minority of the opulent from the majority.

That was James Madison quoted from the constitutional convention in Philadelphia.
(The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 1787’ Philadelphia)

The constitution, and the system which it represents, may be a good system, but make no mistake about who the founders were.

[melody]

5. With all due respect, Emperor72 LOL

I'm related to James Madison. I've studied him. You don't need to tell me his problems. lol

>but make no mistake about who the founders were.

Not all of the founders -- that is the generalization I refer to. No overall group of powerful people does what it does for the interest of anyone but themselves. They may fool themselves otherwise, but the majority will always be selfish primates. Due to Europe's expression of this, our whole individual nation came to be in the first place. There will always be important exceptions -- we were blessed with a few extraordinary people as founders. We shouldn't generalize about any group of people. Had we listened to Franklin and Adams in the first place, we'd have arguably a better country than the one we'd inherited.

[Mr Rabble]

9. I don't think we are speaking about the exceptions here.

Now of course I may just have a different perspective, but I read Belzer's piece, and consider the founders to be mostly rich white men, bent on maintaining a power structure.

And hey, it seems to have worked just as the Madison quote would suggest.

So while there may in fact be outliers or exceptions, the overwhelming majority held the view that Madison suggests.

[treestar]

12. No they weren't, if that had been the case they would have aped

the English system and had a Parliament and nobility. So, for their time, they were actually far advanced and were moving in a very progressive direction.

As for their views of women, etc., give them a break, they lived in the 18th century. May as well criticize them for using leeches instead of ordering MRIs.

[Mr Rabble]

20. Sorry, not going to give them a break.

If their living in the 18th century was an excuse for their treatment of women, then I guess it is fair to say that there was no dissent from those policies?

Bullshit.

You don't get to excuse reprehensible behavior by cloaking it in "the way it was" type of talk.

And you leeches analogy is total BS, as the scientific knowledge of the 18th century was the best of its time. Again, there were obviously people in the 18 century who wanted REAL equality, and some of our founders were dead set against it.

[treestar]

22. Oh baloney

18th century people were not 21st century people, period. On no level, on no subject.

If it weren't for these people, you'd still be living in a less progressed era.

The leeches analogy is perfectly valid.

The Founders were far ahead for their time. Hell, they were probably further ahead for their time than you are for yours.

[melody]

13. We are speaking about the exceptions

Franklin and Adams, at minimum. But Alpha primates (European and American among them) will usually act in selfish,
vicious ways.

But it's a Saturday morning and I am going for a walk. I'll leave posterity to sort itself out. lol

[porphyrian]

3. None of the founders were angels, you know. They were human.

Why should they be exempt from criticism? You don't think they could handle it?

[melody]

6. I didn't say they were!

Why are you arguing with a point I didn't make?

[porphyrian]

8. No, but you got mad because someone said something less than flattering about them.

I was using exaggeration to make my point - they were humans with flaws like the rest of us, and there's no reason Mr. Belzer's comments should make you angry, he may be right.

[melody]

11. I didn't get "mad" about anything, my friend, you did

Because *I* dared criticize Belzer! lol And I'm a big fan of Richard's. I always have been, but just because
we admire someone doesn't mean we can't disagree with them.

Belzer was being unfair, as he often is, to several of the founding fathers who were, in fact, extraordinary people.
I was arguing for fairness. He made an extreme statement, unwarranted by facts.

[porphyrian]

15. Ha! You think I got mad? You obviously don't follow my posts.

I simply thought it was kind of dumb to get "pissed off" (your words, if you don't remember) because of what he said. Think whatever you want, I really don't give a shit.

[FormerDittoHead]

4. and one other point about those who signed the Declaration of Independence, etc..

There were PLENTY of rich people in the US who didn't take sides in the Revolution, maintaining good relations with England as well as the Revolutionaries.

The framers were putting their lives on the line. Washington, et al WERE rich men. They would have CONTINUED BEING rich... And honestly, I question the assertion that Washington was the richest man in the colonies. source?

Those signing the Declaration of Independence, however, would have been killed. Washington went to battle plenty of times, and served as General and President honorably.

Furthermore, to counter Belzer's observation, Jefferson wrote of the evils of aristocracy. Thomas Paine suggested a absolute limit upon which people could leave in their estate, the excess being taxed 100%. Ben Franklin, as you (Melody) point to, started literally from nothing, and while he courted the English aristocracy, CHOSE to join the Revolutionaries when shown its favoritism of the very wealthy in its tax policies. It's a very well known fact that when given the chance to be King himself, Washington chose to step DOWN. Property taxes (a form of wealth tax) were maintained whilst their abolishment would have meant a multitude of riches for the framers. Tariffs were imposed to encourage domestic production, something which many left-leaning liberals support today.

So, my point is that the Founders had PLENTY of opportunities to enrich themselves further which the record shows they turned down.

The fact is that today's rich have no such morals, at least, not which they would want to show outside of their names on their tax-deductible grants. Could you imagine Donald Trump turning down the opportunity of being King?

[melody]

7. Well said -- thank you

We would not now have the modern notion of individual rights without these men. As human and flawed as they were
overall, many were exceptional. A few of them were heroic.

[porphyrian]

10. You don't need to defend them to me, I didn't make any accusations.

My issue was simply with the OP getting angry over Mr. Belzer's statements, and I really don't have much invested in it at all.

[melody]

14. You're a Belzer fan, we get that, believe me

I'm a Belzer fan too but not to the extent I must defend every assertion he makes. lol

[porphyrian]

16. You make lots of assumptions. You really shouldn't do that.

I'm hardly a fan, I just thought that your reaction was stupid and made a comment about it. If you don't want people to respond to your posts, don't post.

[melody]

18. You thought so because you were emotionally reacting to protect Belzer against criticism

You didn't even understand the crux of my comment, which is evident from your remarks.
Incidentally, when you do as the wingnuts do and try to hurl someone else's argument back
at them, please try to understand the fine distinctions being made or it just sounds foolish
as hell.

I love people to respond intelligently to my posts, but this kind of inane babble is pointless.
Welcome to my ignore list.

[porphyrian]

21. Again, you need to stop making assumptions. It's making you look stupid.

I haven't made an emotional post in this thread yet. I simply remarked that your getting "pissed off" is ridiculous in this context. Now, if you don't mind, stop projecting your own emotional dysfunction onto me as my motive. Please put me on ignore, I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

[Zomby Woof]

23. I don't know if Washington was the wealthiest

But in any event, he owed his considerable net worth to marrying Martha Custis. When she was widowed, she was probably the wealthiest woman in the colonies, and when Washington married her, he became one of the wealthiest men by default. So if Belzer is wrong, it isn't by any significant degree.

[acmavm]

17. For their time the Founders of the nation were the most progressive

men on this planet. And they had the vision, courage, and humanity to put their plans into action, and their actions into a foundation for a new country unlike anthing ever seen on this planet before.

They were not perfect, but for their times they were as damn near as you could get.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

19. You're lumping them all together again...

Some of them were very progressive and others not so very progressive and those that were progressive were progressive to varying degrees. I would not call them "the most progressive people on the planet" nor would I call them "as damn near as you could get" to perfect. Of course, if they were "the most progressive men on the planet" I don't think slavery would have been an issue.

That being said, I think the OP is correct that just as I wouldn't lump them all as you did, I wouldn't lump them all as "rich white men" who were trying to grab grab grab.

[acmavm]

24. Everything I said was premised on the line "for their time". And for their

time they were remarkable men.