Granted. However, in the US I saw multiple times people getting at each other throats in arguing what a founding father really meant with this or this other sentence. So in an argument with a less charitable person, you might find yourself in facing somebody telling you that Franklin meant the exact opposite. That's why arguments from authority are usually bad. In any case, this is getting off-topic pretty quickly, so I'll end it here :-)
It's really just "appeal to authority", which is a very common logical fallacy used in politics. Everyone has their opinion on the intent of the founding fathers and that is used to sway many political arguments.
The phrase “founding fathers” is gross and embarrassing as an American. They weren’t deities and they didn’t happen to invent the ultimate possible government for all time. We’re using computers to talk about stuff they literally wrote on animal skins with bird feathers! They rode horses to go visit other states, we have global fiber optic networks. Even if they were good ideas then, it’s not remotely the same world we’re living in now.
"You're cherry-picking, like most people who invoke the founding fathers to win an argument."
I suppose I could retort "People who reject anything based on pointing to the founding fathers are pretty much trying to ignore actual history and substitute some glorified version."
but...
No, just stating a bit of fact about the origins of the system. Something that is good practice in analyzing why a system is as it is. Checks and balances were much more important than efficiency. In fact the executive branch's quest for more "efficiency" with national programs started in the 1920's and continuing through today have done great harm to the checks and balances enjoyed by the people and the states.
It wasn't exactly a bed of roses with all parties in agreement at the start. The election of 1800 would be a pretty good example of how divisive this country has always been. There has never been the civility that modern politicians believe existed before today.
That is an extremely simplified view of the founding principles of the US. The federalists were a pretty well known contingent of the founding fathers as well.
And it doesn't mean what people often claim it means. He was speaking literally. William Penn's family was trying to buy off the state legislature with a one time payment for military defense in exchange for the state legislature conceding more power to the Penns. It wasn't about some abstract liberty like privacy or safety against something abstract like terrorism. It was Franklin judging a specific political offer to help the legislature fight a war in exchange for giving up some rights to self-governance.
I'm on mobile so I can't provide sources too well, but it's fairly clear if you study the American Founding.
Source: political science undergraduate
Of course you are welcome to form your own interpretation, but I feel it is a fairly clear distinction. Happy to further this discussion when I'm at a computer with more access to info.
You're right, I confused the two last names, and corrected it.
We have had some quote it as if were law, which I why I mentioned that. It isn't law, nor is it a foundational/original view of the USA dating from the Revolutionary War.
Your historical summary leaves out quite a bit of actual information in order to simplify and provide a one-sided explanation. Too bad I got sucked into arguing with you when you obviously have the founding fathers as part of your identity and aren't open to discussing it.
reply