In part one of this short series of posts on Ben Franklin's take on The Constitution, I told you that his focus in giving this speech was to urge the men in the room to stay focused on compromise in order to protect the greater good of this new governing document. He knew, though, that his task was difficult because many men had concerns about various aspects of the final document, things they simply did not like. He could see that ultimately, if they weren't careful, some form of despotic government could be our fate.
For the past few years, I've been saying the following to my students that the United States is as ripe as it's ever been for a dictatorial take over. I follow that up with some comments about how this could easily come from either the Left (like a Castro or Stalin) or the Right (like a Mussolini or Napoleon). That notion is too long to go into detail here, but the point is the Franklin saw the possible threat of this coming. Note what Franklin said:
In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general government necessary for us, there is no Form of Government but what may be a blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. -Ben Franklin, "From Benjamin Franklin: Speech in the Convention on the Constitution (unpublished) Mon, Sep 17, 1787
Look at the key points involved in this sentiment: "to be well administered for a course of years." Now think about this, when was the last time we had a good administration? Many will rush quickly to Reagan, but for many on the left politically, he certainly was not a good president. He was probably the closest to the Founders' position on many issues that we'd had in leadership since Grover Cleveland, so perhaps he fits. Others would suggest President Clinton, but his administration was ripe with integrity issues. In many respects, you end up almost 100 years back till the series of presidents that includes Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson (and those Progressive Presidents all had issues that the Founders would have had problems with).
What is "well administered" anyway? For the Founders, it certainly would have meant keeping a close connection to the Constitution. Having just written the document, they were concerned with how it was to be interpreted. And no, they didn't agree in full, but they were constantly concerned with it.
It also would have meant keeping the excesses of power under wraps. Again, they would have disagreed as to how tight the wraps were to be held, but even Hamilton would be aghast at how powerful the Federal Government has become. Having just fought with England for control of their own futures, the Founding Fathers were in no mood to return to some over-powerful government (Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion being the two most famous examples of that feeling, post-Revolutionary War).
Here's the second key point Franklin makes --"when the people shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other." What does he mean by "corrupted?" Merriam-Webster's says corrupted means "1 a : to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions; b : to degrade with unsound principles or moral values." To Franklin, our Republic would hold as long as we held to a sense of virtue, a connection to the values upon which the country, the early colonies were established. John Adams, Patrick Henry and others spoke to the same point -- any loss of values that provide our foundation will doom the Republic.
Are we there yet? Well, certainly it depends upon whom you ask, but I think the answer is a pretty easy "yes." We are there now. Corrupted. No matter what side of the political aisle you are on, it's not hard to look around for evidence of the moral corruption that has gripped our country. And the reason is not our supposed rejection of God. Instead, I would offer one main reason to be that the last three generations of Americans (Millennials, Gen X, Boomers) have grown up in so much abundance, our wealth and success has eaten away at the fibers of our historic understanding of values such as hard work, truth, trustworthiness, and sacrifice.
Can we fix this? Honestly, I'm not sure, but we must try. This is one reason why I travel as a speaker, talking about values. The Founders weren't sure they would make it either, as Franklin is clearly saying, but he had given most of his life to attempt to help out (through writing, through service, through sacrifice). We must try.
Carl E Creasman Jr is a Professor of History at Valencia College in Orlando, FL.
I especially appreciate that you've explained that, in the context of the foundation and continuation of our society, the terms 'morals' and 'values' have a meaning other than their religious overtones. Too often now days those words are taken to have one connotation and one connotation only, and those who aren't faithful or religious tend to be turned off by them. And, as your piece pointed out, we simply can not afford that type of misunderstanding when too much is at stake. This piece is a great reminder that being a concerned citizen is an issue of values and morals as well.
You were right. I do appreciate Franklin's thoughts and concerns. His words about compromise are words to remember and to live by. Thank you, again, for the link.
Why skip FDR? The Depression was the time when the US could had become a dictatorship as did so many of the world's nations.
One could go on but this guy seems to not understand much about Franklin, the Constitution or the history of the US. One expects better from a Community College professor with a masters degree in Divinity.
Yes, I've oversimplified.
I would propose instead that it has been the consolidation of "speech" into (relatively speaking) fewer and fewer hands.
At one point, the ratio of speakers to audience was 1 to 100 or perhaps as bad as 1 to 1000. (I'm thinking of early newspapers, most with tiny circulations.)
But these days, "media empires" have been consolidating for decades. What newspapers survive are part of 2 or three major chains, with local news and local concerns forgotten. Radio broadcasting has similarly been consolidated into the misleadingly named "Clear Channel" with a similar loss of local speech.
Web sites are usually national in scope - at best regional.
Yes and no. I'm sure they wanted all government actions to be guided by the Constitution, but they also built in a clear mechanism for the Constitution to be amended, so they weren't wedded to a static Constitution.
I think, perhaps more importantly, that abundance has meant too many have grown up with no need to share or be in need help. And the selfishness that breeds can be seen in the open disdain for those who have less or need help.
In keeping with your idea, I would say that it would be an administration where the the agenda is set based on the interest of people not the funders of campaigns.
Since Woodrow Wilson, propaganda has become a devise to manipulate public opinion.
Now, with the consolidation of the media the oligarchy has risen...Your conclusion is correct!
But it has already happened. Now both the left and the right are controllled---not by the people but the few!
Agreed. And it will eventually be fixed, but most likely the hard way - when "our historic understanding" of true hardship is once again acquired firsthand. Collapse of the dollar as global reserve currency would do the trick.
"Having just fought with England for control of their own futures, the Founding Fathers were in no mood to return to some over-powerful government (Shays' Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion being the two most famous examples of that feeling, post-Revolutionary War)."
George Washington, during his presidency, actually led a 12,000 man federalized militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. The rebellion which collapsed when the millita approached. This was the only time an acting President of the United States led an army on the field.
How many millenials hold public office? How many gen X ers?
Blaming us for the actions if our parents and grandparents is quite a stretch.
The corruption of our government lies squarely at the feet of the so called "moral majority" that has worked tirelessly for the last several decades to pass the reins of the state over to the church.
They are tyrannical, radical, and unable to compromise. They live in a childish world of black and white while holding office that requires you to put away childish things. They erode personal liberty at every turn trying to impose their theology on the rest of us and pass idiotic regulations because they honestly believe that their intent while passing a law matters more than the letter of the law so their language is naive and slipshod.
And that's before we take an honest look at their holy wars against other faiths on the world stage.
They are destroying this country.
What do you think the purpose of increased military spending combined with a philosophy of, "I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
The result of no government is anarchy and chaos.
Power abhors a vacuum.
And, as Mao wrote, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."