fwiw, I think the big issue here is partisanship. the framers didn't anticipate political parties at all.
fwiw, I think the big issue here is partisanship. the framers didn't anticipate political parties at all.
I think the sheer aggregation of capital and the reach and power of media machines fueled by that capital would have been an unfathomable Lovecraftian nightmare to them.
bsky.app/profile/josh...
But that's not true at all! Federalist Papers #10 is titled "The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection" and is all about how "factions" (ie: political parties) are bad, and how the newly proposed Constitution with national federalism would weaken them.
@nberlat.bsky.social yep. we should fix it with FFV #RankedChoiceVoting.
Except Thomas Jefferson, is it wrong to think the most (or maybe second most after the Loiusiana Purchase) impactful thing he ever did was create the nations 1st real political party?
They sort of had them but thought they were going to be minor and if not then a big mistake. We almost lost it with the Alien and Sedition Act, which treated "the opposition" as treason. In that sense the first party system was a step forward for democracy as it allowed for political opposition.
Have you never read the Federalist Papers, my dude?
They had political parties. They were just naive enough to think that only the wisest and most dedicated (white, land-owning) men would choose to serve in them, they considered career politicians gauche, and they imagined everyone else would feel the same way. www.loc.gov/exhibits/cre...