The Framer's Coup - Video

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

The Framer's Coup - Video

Post by honorentheos »

I've mentioned before that one of the better books I read last year was The Framer's Coup by Michael Klarman. I saw he gave a pretty decent presentation on the book that is available on YouTube. It can be viewed here:

https://youtu.be/UKuimRUJV3A

The presentation served as a good addition to understanding his framing of the book more than his attempting to condense the content of the book into an hour of talking to an audience.

For the purposes of discussion, I'd like to draw attention to what Klarman has to say beginning at minute 17:44 of the video. It is at this point that he begins to speak to an issue I think most modern Americans would find surprising about the Constitution. That being, it was explicitly attempting to correct the exuberant populism that followed the revolution, codified into the Articles of Confederation, that were failing. Put simply, the Constitution was needed to prevent the failure of forming a successful enterprise that could survive, and accomplishing that required putting bounds on radical belief in self rule.
User avatar
Morley
God
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 6:17 pm
Location: detail from Alice Neel's 1980 self portrait

Re: The Framer's Coup - Video

Post by Morley »

honorentheos wrote:
Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:05 pm
The Framer's Coup by Michael Klarman.
Bought it. On your recommendation, this has elbowed its way to the next read on my list. Thanks, Honor. I'll let you know what I think.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The Framer's Coup - Video

Post by honorentheos »

Morley wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:57 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:05 pm
The Framer's Coup by Michael Klarman.
Bought it. On your recommendation, this has elbowed its way to the next read on my list. Thanks, Honor. I'll let you know what I think.
I look forward to your thoughts, Morley. I think I mentioned elsewhere that what made it valuable to me was the perspective it gave on the entirety of the process from the Articles of Confederation through the Philadelphia Convention, ratification, and ultimately the processes that changed it from a controversial act to an almost religious regard for the Constitution. Most of the history wasn't new to me, yet the organization and ordered presentation reframed them. In so many ways it made our modern history seem little different from what the framers were dealing with when they took on the issues.

We are a stranger people in a strange land.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: The Framer's Coup - Video

Post by Res Ipsa »

honorentheos wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:29 pm
Morley wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 10:57 pm


Bought it. On your recommendation, this has elbowed its way to the next read on my list. Thanks, Honor. I'll let you know what I think.
I look forward to your thoughts, Morley. I think I mentioned elsewhere that what made it valuable to me was the perspective it gave on the entirety of the process from the Articles of Confederation through the Philadelphia Convention, ratification, and ultimately the processes that changed it from a controversial act to an almost religious regard for the Constitution. Most of the history wasn't new to me, yet the organization and ordered presentation reframed them. In so many ways it made our modern history seem little different from what the framers were dealing with when they took on the issues.

We are a stranger people in a strange land.
I’m sold. Adding it to my list. Thanks!
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The Framer's Coup - Video

Post by honorentheos »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:04 am
honorentheos wrote:
Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:29 pm


I look forward to your thoughts, Morley. I think I mentioned elsewhere that what made it valuable to me was the perspective it gave on the entirety of the process from the Articles of Confederation through the Philadelphia Convention, ratification, and ultimately the processes that changed it from a controversial act to an almost religious regard for the Constitution. Most of the history wasn't new to me, yet the organization and ordered presentation reframed them. In so many ways it made our modern history seem little different from what the framers were dealing with when they took on the issues.

We are a stranger people in a strange land.
I’m sold. Adding it to my list. Thanks!
Glad to hear! I'm interested in your thoughts along the way!
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: The Framer's Coup - Video

Post by Gadianton »

A couple weeks ago, a far right guy introduced me to a new talking point that I hadn't heard before. I filed it away, and then a couple days ago, from a very different context a very different right-wing other guy made the exact same point. I assume they have a common source and so Ajax, Binger, Wallaby, or Ceeboo might have something to contribute here also.

They say that the founding fathers believed in liberty, not democracy.

This might go back to an old-school right-wing talking point: we live in a republic, not a democracy. "I pledge allegiance to flag, and to the democracy...?" (har har, gottcha!)

The naïve critique of democracy is that Rausseau's idea of "the general will of the people" is obviously dumb because if 51% of people want somethin' bad, then obviously we'd want some kind of check on that. So the valid point would be that we want some kind of institutionalism with checks and balances along with the people having a say.

Relevant to this thread would be; well, H and Morley, does the book give any reason to believe that "democracy" is some kind of leftist bastardization of an original intent of "liberty?"

I will follow up later when I have more time with the 2 sources and comments about that.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: The Framer's Coup - Video

Post by Res Ipsa »

Gadianton wrote:
Wed Nov 30, 2022 4:21 pm
A couple weeks ago, a far right guy introduced me to a new talking point that I hadn't heard before. I filed it away, and then a couple days ago, from a very different context a very different right-wing other guy made the exact same point. I assume they have a common source and so Ajax, Binger, Wallaby, or Ceeboo might have something to contribute here also.

They say that the founding fathers believed in liberty, not democracy.

This might go back to an old-school right-wing talking point: we live in a republic, not a democracy. "I pledge allegiance to flag, and to the democracy...?" (har har, gottcha!)

The naïve critique of democracy is that Rausseau's idea of "the general will of the people" is obviously dumb because if 51% of people want somethin' bad, then obviously we'd want some kind of check on that. So the valid point would be that we want some kind of institutionalism with checks and balances along with the people having a say.

Relevant to this thread would be; well, H and Morley, does the book give any reason to believe that "democracy" is some kind of leftist bastardization of an original intent of "liberty?"

I will follow up later when I have more time with the 2 sources and comments about that.
It flows from simplistic black and white thinking. "Liberty" and "Democracy" are not polar opposites. The founding fathers believed in both, while recognizing the that tensions exit between the two. That the entire system they adopted involved democratically elected government puts the lie to any claim that the FF didn't believe in democracy: representative democracy is still democracy. Democracy increases liberty by giving the people, rather than God or the king, control over the government.

But they also believed in the existence of inalienable rights that a bare majority of citizens should not be able to alter. So, they limited the powers of the federal governments in constitutions (as did all the states) that could be altered only by amending the constitution, which required some form of supermajority. In the case of the federal government, it required supermajority approval by both the democratically elected representatives of the people in Congress but also elected representatives of the states themselves. (And there's an example of why we are a Repulic.)

So, to describe our national government properly, it is a Constitutional Democratic Republic. All three of those words apply and are critical to understanding the complex balancing act that is the United States of America.

To some extent, it's silly to talk about the FF's intent when the people have repeatedly exercised their right to amend the Constitution to expand the Democratic aspects of our country: extending the right to vote to non-land owners, women, black folk, native Americans, and those subject to military conscription. The right to elect senators was transferred from state legislatures to state citizens. Through amending the Constitution -- something the FF also specifically provided for, the people have repeatedly opted for making the country more democratic. That's not against the intent of the FF. That's an explicit part of the FF's intent -- to give the people the power to amend the Constitution.

Constitutional Democratic Republic.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3762
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: The Framer's Coup - Video

Post by honorentheos »

I don't think anyone who says the framers espoused liberty over democracy is informed. Perhaps they confused the framers with the French Revolution.

Both the Federalists (those who favored a strong national government with taxation authority) and Anti-Federalists (those who did not, preferring a weak national government with power residing more at the level of the states) shared the belief in the authority of their preferred government being derived from the people. This has nothing to do with liberty as a concept. It was also of supreme interest at the time given we were engaging in an experiment which was not paralleled in the monarchies of Europe and was explicitly derived from enlightenment views. I agree with Res that the idea more closely held than that of liberty was of rights that were not granted by government but resided in each individual by nature.

The book does a good job laying out the complex background from which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights arose. The failures of the Articles of Confederation played an essential role in informing the Virginia Plan which Madison brought to the Constitutional Convention. The Framers held views against popular opinion and a skepticism towards majority rule, as well as shared beliefs in the need for a muscular federal government. This differs from saying they did not "believe" in democracy, but viewed the function of government as needing safeguards and protections from potential problems that popular opinion could and often did produce.

For example, at the time many state legislatures held one year terms, which the framers recognized as disruptive. The Congress formed under the Articles of Confederation were composed of state delegates who were appointed annually. When debating behind closed doors as to what form the new government should take, longer terms of office were seen as a needed buffer for reasoned rule. Terms from three years to life appointments for Senators were considered, revealing the tension involved between authority being derived from the people, but those representing the people being allowed to be engaged in matters of national interest rather than just being whips for shifting public whim.
Chap
God
Posts: 2308
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:42 am
Location: On the imaginary axis

Re: The Framer's Coup - Video

Post by Chap »

honorentheos wrote:
Wed Nov 30, 2022 8:13 pm
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Ha! A. O. C. is OK.

But those three letters together without gaps do not give you
Articles of Confederation.
But ... Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: The Framer's Coup - Video

Post by Res Ipsa »

Chap wrote:
Wed Nov 30, 2022 8:45 pm
honorentheos wrote:
Wed Nov 30, 2022 8:13 pm
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Ha! A. O. C. is OK.

But those three letters together without gaps do not give you
Articles of Confederation.
But ... Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
I'm still chucking at the image of Congress being formed underneath said Congresswoman.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
Post Reply