Another lesson from Founding Fathers

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Question Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 17, 2010 4:26 p.m.

    Roland Kayser | 3:25 p.m.

    You are aware that cutting or keeping abortion... would affect the Federal Budget by $0.00... right?



    On cutting the budget...
    So any specific group/department/bureau doesn't feel picked on... I would suggest cutting a percentage from all department budgets. Then make sure the things they cut are the waste, inneficiency, fluf, etc... not the essential services their department provides.

    It seems like every time we propose cutting budgets they immedatly say... "Well OK, but that means the FIRST thing that has to go will be Police, Firemen, teachers, etc". They never even CONSIDER cutting the salary of the cute secretary for the under-secretary of an aid to a bureaucrat's office or something like that!


    The endless beurocracy is always the LAST thing they will cut.


  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 17, 2010 3:25 p.m.

    To @Charles: I know you weren't addressing me but I would be happy to compromise on a tax cut, as soon as they tell me what spending will be cut to pay for it.
    What would you suggest as an abortion compromise? Okay for the first trimester, illegal after that except for valid medical reasons? Abortion seems to be one of those issues that both sides find uncompromisable. (I'm not on either extreme on that issue, so I would be willing to compromise.)

  • JHP Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 17, 2010 3:11 p.m.

    Moderation in commitment to truth and true principles is not a virtue; however, moderation in temperament is essential to civil and effective discourse in politics.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 17, 2010 2:58 p.m.

    @Lane Myer 9:46 a.m.

    I was referring to this:

    "In The Federalist Papers...two of our leading founders, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, tried to teach 'a lesson of moderation.'"

    Only a minor editing thing, but gotta give John Jay his due.


    @Brer Rabbit 2:30 p.m.

    Good Cicero quote.

  • Brer Rabbit Spanish Fork, UT
    Sept. 17, 2010 2:30 p.m.

    For the most part the founding fathers would be considered extremest, especially from the King and British point of view. Not all of the debate during those times was just "happy talk."

    Likely there would have been no Revolution if there hadn't been the likes of Patrick Henry to encourage the extremists. Then later we have Patrick Henry opposing the new Constitution and refused to vote for it. The voice of Patrick Henry would have been considered extreme, from the biased point of view of this writer.

    No Patrick Henry, probably no United States. To label the TeaParty folks as extremist is as biased as labeling the original Tea Party, by the Sons of Liberty an extreme action, which it was. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue." Marcus Tullius Cicero, (Roman Statesman)

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 17, 2010 1:44 p.m.

    "In Federalist No. 2, John Jay, who later became the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, contrasts moderation with "pride," which predisposes us to "justify all (our) actions" instead of "acknowledging, correcting or repairing (our) errors and offenses." "

    ----------

    I think that is actually in Federalist #3, but who cares?

    Your point is well made.

  • @Charles the greater outdoors, UT
    Sept. 17, 2010 1:40 p.m.

    The letter writer states, "As a result, the political right is able to profit from using alarmist fear tactics to demonize the left, and the left is smugly satisfied with using ridicule to make the right seem foolish."

    What is a fear tactic and how does anyone profit from it?

    What is extreme and who gets to decide?

    @Esquire: you make many generalizations and accusations in your post. Contrary to your assertion Christ never acknowledged the "necessity" of taxes. Christ taught people to be self-reliant, provident living and to help others of your own free will and choice. No force or stealing through the government to give to another.

    I'd also like to ask any self-professed Democrat, but especially Esquire since the theme of rigid and unbending is being used: give me at least 5 areas that you'd be willing to bend towards Conservatives. Any 5 areas and how you'd be willing to be less rigid.

    Cut taxes?
    Abortion?
    Stem-cell?
    Repeal Obamacare?
    National term limits?
    Acknowledgement of the 10th Amendment?
    Leave marriage up to the states?

    Those are just a few suggestions but you can come up with your own.

    Please share, okay?

  • Question Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 17, 2010 12:22 p.m.

    Esquire | 7:38 a.m.

    You need to take the rhetoric and stereotyping down a notch.

    So you spoke to a "Tea_party_type" who was a radical. So what! That doesn't mean you judge or label or group ALL "Tea_party_types" as being radical!

    That would be as lame as labeling all Muslims as "Radicals" because you heard about one radical Muslim.


    There are radicals in ALL groups. That DOESN'T mean they are all radicals.



    You seem to have a general stereotype for "Tea-party-types". Would you mind sharing your genarlizations and pre_conceived notions of what a "Tea_party_type" is? So we can see if they all fit your "Tea-party-type" mold?


    If you cared to find out (and not just accept what you heard "Tea_party_types" are on TV or from the few "Tea_party_types" you know... you would learn that they are a very diverse group. Some racicals. Some very common people.


    There is no one group/type that has all knowledge.... and the other that gets everything wrong. Stop grouping people into "Types"... and you may realise that.

    When you stop seeing people as rhetorical "blah_blah_blah_Types"... "Democrat_types", "Republican_types", "Christian_types", "Islamic", "Jewish_types", etc... You will be better off.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 17, 2010 12:18 p.m.

    In the election of 1800, the supporters of John Adams called Thomas Jefferson the Anti-Christ. They meant it in a literal, not metaphoric, sense. They had newspapers that were every bit as partisan as Fox news, the Weekly Standard, or The New York Review of Books.
    Its a bit of a stretch to say that were always moderate.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 17, 2010 11:25 a.m.

    John Charity Spring | 7:38 a.m. Sept. 17, 2010
    Alloway, NJ

    As this letter points out, the Fathers hated political extremism. Indeed, the very reason they fought the Revolutionary War was to rid this Continent of extremists.

    The Fathers not only believed in moderation, they also believed in loyal, prudence, and chastity.

    =========================

    John,

    Why do your comments always come across as you are the only expert on what the Founding Fathers thought?

    Agreed, they didn't like extremists - since they were Progressive Liberals who valued equality to all mankind.

    They fought England on account of freedom and equality - something the Conservative Lords and Royals who wanted to continue a caste system back in England were trying to "Conserve"the status quo.

    And some of them were far less than "Chaste".
    But I don't want to go there out of reverence for what they accomplished.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 17, 2010 9:46 a.m.

    Nate | 7:34 a.m. Sept. 17, 2010
    Pleasant Grove, UT
    Mr. Riddle,

    You don't count John Jay as a Founding Father? Really?

    -----------

    Nate,

    I think he did count him as one. I do not see where you think he excluded him.

  • Cameron Eagle Mountain, UT
    Sept. 17, 2010 8:52 a.m.

    A Revolutionary War wasn't too moderate.

    The idea is not to be convictionless or rudderless. No, the Founders were very opinionated and willing to argue for what they believed in.

    That said, when two sides are yelling at each other, rarely is anyone convinced.

  • John Charity Spring Alloway, NJ
    Sept. 17, 2010 7:38 a.m.

    This is truly one of the best letters to appear in this paper in a log time. Too few people these days know what the Founding Fathers stood for, and are willing to follow their wishes.

    As this letter points out, the Fathers hated political extremism. Indeed, the very reason they fought the Revolutionary War was to rid this Continent of extremists.

    The Fathers not only believed in moderation, they also believed in loyal, prudence, and chastity. The modern left-wing extremists in charge of the government have abandoned these values, and this Country is worse off for it.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 17, 2010 7:38 a.m.

    I generally like what I read here. It is too bad the tea party types say they love the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, yet open-minded reasonableness is the furthest thing from their minds. I had a discussion with one of them who said taxes are government theft. When I pointed out all the services he receives, and that even Christ acknowledged the necessity of taxes, he was unmovable. No taxes, in any amount whatsoever. He religiously watches Fox News and the right wing commentators, and clearly does not think or mentally process what he is hearing. Just because it is harped on over and over by Glen Beck and others, does not mean it is true, reasonable or accurate. And I have talked to many who are similarly rigid and unbending. This is not what the Founding Fathers wanted or believed in.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 17, 2010 7:34 a.m.

    Mr. Riddle,

    You don't count John Jay as a Founding Father? Really?

    Another thing: fear-mongering is not exclusive to the right, nor is ridicule exclusive to the left. (I ridicule the Left all the time.)

    You did a good job, and gave us much to think about. It's hard to be moderate when your freedom is at stake. But we do need to keep a level head.

  • Twin Lights Shelbyville, KY
    Sept. 17, 2010 7:06 a.m.

    An excellent letter.

    Thank you.