Would the founding fathers of the United States (Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison), be considered liberals, moderates, or conservatives today?
The answer is yes.Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and the other Colonial revolutionaries were not considered liberals in their time—the term didn’t exist as a political label. They were republicans (note lowercase r).When the term liberal did come along a generation later, republicanism was considered the pinnacle of liberal advancement. It defined the left end of the political spectrum. The basic creedo was straightforward and moderate—for so long as civic virtue was maintained, the populace could be left to settle its own affairs without the need for laws to circumscribe their behavior beyond the known strictures of the common law.This remained the American outlook until after the Civil War when the progressive outlook began to emerge. For example, there were no laws prohibiting abortion until perhaps the earliest progressive campaign in 1872 channeled through the New York Times to make abortion illegal. New York state did just that the following year and other states followed. There were soon laws of moral prohibition being passed by legislatures throughout the United States. This was anti-liberal.The first, and most ideological, conservative movement was the Conservative Democrats. They were closely allied with the progressive movement and anti-liberal. But, by the turn of the century, a movement emerged founded explicitly on the outlook of Irish Whig parliamentarian Edmund Burke. The young movement labeled itself conservative as it desired to conserve our founding heritage, where progressives did not, but with an emphasis on primarily Catholic morality in place of the progressive emphasis on Victorian Protestant morality.We have many stripes of conservatives in the US, most of them focused on conserving our liberal founding heritage. The Burkean branch, also known as “movement” or “mainstream” conservatives is the most prone to self-label as conservative. But, basically, all such conservative outlooks overlap extensively with our founding liberal outlook.Indeed, the economic component of republicanism is free enterprise. Liberals, moderates and conservatives embrace free enterprise. Progressives do not. So, take your pick, but were our founders to time travel to the present day, they’d fit in as liberals (true sense), moderates and/or conservatives.
What happens when cryptocurrency becomes unaffordable for new users to buy in or to buy less valuable items?
What is so awesome about cryptos like bitcoin is that we can divide one bitcoin indefinitely, so has the value increases we will see merchants just fix the cost of items accordingly. This is actually why we will never see inflation happen and also allow us to use bitcoin forever (in theory) without having to generate more coins. So it will never be to late to buy in, maybe to make money on it, but eventually bitcoin will be accepted like visa (everywhere) and at that point we will all want some just so we can participate in commerce. If you still have any questions feel free to eMail me at BennOlsen@gmail.com
How, in the greatest country in the world, did we end up with Trump as president?
“The report, conducted by U.S. News in partnership with the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and global brand consultants BAV Consulting, shows that Switzerland is viewed as the world's No. 1 country, and that the U.S. is down from its previous No. 4 ranking, according to a survey of more than 21,000 people.”How we ended up with trump? most significant reasons IMO.(1) Low voter turnout(2) White males who found Trump’s racist, misogynist, isolationist, greedy and narcissistic attitudes, language, and talking points attractive and gave him their vote.(3) White women just as "racist" as their white male counterparts.(4) Russian interference and it’s effect.(5) People in general viewed politics as corrupt. There was nothing better for the underclasses and middle class, same promises with little done and lots of excuses, feeling politicians were always building their empires and not working for THEM. They stunning difference in Trump was so raw, offensive, he seemed unafraid of being penalized for being so different. ‘I could shoot somebody on 5th Ave. and you’d still love me …’ He seemed invulnerable. From the campaign vantage point, a tough guy, even if he was offensive, might just clear that corruption from politics.(6) Trump listened to what people were saying and told each faction what THEY wanted to hear. He lied to them, but it sounded damn good at the time.(7) Democrats focused more on turning out supporters than growing the base.(8) Because Comey. The FBI director's decision to revive the Clinton email circus, two weeks before Election Day, gave Trump the chance to jump on CROOKED HILLARY, and killed the Democrat's momentum and derailed her efforts within ELEVEN days of the vote (which was something Comey was NOT supposed to do in that time frame).
Founding Fathers of the United States: Why are the founders of the US called patriots when they were slavers protecting their property interests - what's patriotic about that?
A couple of great answers, but let me give you something else to consider, because I think the premise of your question is based in mis-information. When the Northwest Territories were formed they were created with a document called the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. This happened about the same time the Constitution was being written to replace the Articles of Confederation. The Northwest Territories comprise land that now makes up all or part of six states - Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota. What many do NOT know about it is that the territory was GIVEN to the USA by Virginia. Yes, that land, like the present states of West Virginia and Kentucky, was all originally part of Virginia. But more shocking to most today and relevant to the discussion here is that the Northwest Ordinance included in it a clause that the land was given with the understanding that the USA would NEVER allow slavery to exist within that territory.Yes. This was the Virginia Legislature. You know, the same state where Washington and Jefferson served and lived. The state of Lee. The "Old Dominion". Virginia DEMANDED that slavery cease to exist in the new lands to the West.That was in 1787. At that time there was a lot of moral struggle, and many of our Founders were in favor of freeing the slaves and abolishing the institution. They compromised in the end because it threatened to rip the infant country apart. They concluded that, given the current attitudes of their day, that slavery would wither and die on its own in a generation and become a non-issue.Yet by the 1830's the mood had shifted dramatically. Unlike the Founders, who believed that "...all men are created equal...", there was a new theory making the rounds - Naturalistic Evolution. Darwin arrived, and suddenly the enslaved races weren't just different, they were inferior. Less evolved. This attitude is contained in much of the correspondence of people like Jefferson Davis and the CSA founders, and is enshrined in the CSA's constitution. Slavery roared back, with people justifying the denial of freedom to their fellow man due to a supposed inferiority. This excuse continues to be used to this day, and it is all based in Darwinism.This is why the Founders didn't act more aggressively to abolish slavery. They failed to foresee the rise of Darwinism and Evolution as a theory of origin, or the moral chaos it would sow.