Barring an improbable shift to populist economic policies, the GOP is doomed to become a permanent minority party in the next decade. As a result, we are starting to see intellectual justifications for minority rule based on the alleged intentions of the Founding Fathers. Do they have any basis in reality?
No, for the following reasons:
- While it is certainly true that the FFs were not pure democrats, their ideas were extremely advanced for their age, as evidenced in the Declaration and the preamble to the Constitution. Their objective was to provide representation for both the wealthy and the masses, as in the Roman Republic. As a result, there are no restrictions on the franchise in the Constitution, as there might well have been.
- The other clear template for the new American political system was the British system, in which the House of Commons, not the House of Lords, was the predominant actor even at the time the Constitution was written.
- If you believe in oligarchy, it is counterintuitive, to say the least, to argue that white Christian voters in relatively poor red states should have more power than voters in more prosperous blue states.
- The most important point here is that the FFs view of democracy has been superseded by dramatic constitutional changes over the last two centuries. The FFs accepted slavery, a subordinate position for women, and a Senate that was not elected by the people; we don’t. To rely on their views on democratic principles in this day and age in light of our history is consequently ridiculous.