I certainly think that Ellis hopes he makes this claim.
His basic argument is that the Founding Fathers were uniquely qualified to guide the
nation through the turbulence of the Revolution and the struggles of the early years
because of the fundamental trust as people they had for one another. Even with severe
ideological differences, the Framers never lost sight of the fact that the basic respect
they had for one another would enable them to work through any problems. Consider the
interest when Madison and Hamilton held different viewpoints towards solving the
nation's financial crisis. Jefferson invited them for dinner in one of the first "beer
summits," and asked them to do their best to work out their differences. They were able
to do so. This small story reflects what Ellis believes made the founding fathers so
much like brothers: There was a mutual trust and respect that did not allow the
discourse to delve into self- destruction. It is here where Ellis feels they were
amazing.
This week, after the U.S. Senate passed the bill
to avert the debt crisis that dominated the last two months of American politics,
President Obama said something that is haunting, when considering the question and
Ellis' work:
Voters may have chosen divided government, but
they sure didn't vote for dysfunctional
government.
Ellis' argument
is that the framers were exceptional because they understood that divided government
does not mean dysfunctional government. Intense problems of their day were resolved not
through political wrangling, but through a fundamental respect and trust that allowed
their differences to be seen like familial differences of thought and not intense
partisanship that threatens the basic sensibilities of a great democracy. In this,
Ellis find them extraordinary.
No comments:
Post a Comment