Did anyone notice that there are 3 liberals and a moderate carved into Mount Rushmore?

Question

PLEASE if you are not smart enough to know that political affiliation does not determine your being conservative or liberal, or that Lincoln was the only one who was a member of the present day GOP DO NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION
Jefferson was an agnostic who slept with a black slave named Sally Hemmings. He was a revolutionary traitor to the Crown who championed religious freedom and was anti slavery (very liberal ideas for there time. As President he cut military spending supported the French revoloution and had the louisiana purchase. (a large govt program? sounds pretty liberal)
Teddy Roosevelt was a trree hugging, union supporting, Trust buster, who loved Govt regulation started the FDA, SEC S&L Nat Parks dept,
Lincoln the south seceded because they thought he was to liberal to defend slavery and southern rights
The reason this question is on here is to prove that liberal does not equal weak and evil, and that party affiliation may not represent your issue.

When Someone disagrees with this question Ill be expecting a lot of personel insults but not much in the way of substance, how bout somebody surprises me?
Just FYI I know my history very well so b able to back it up

Surfer296 you saved the Cons
You were the only disentor with a well thought out answer with some substance
instead of avoiding the premise or just spewing insults. I may not totally agree with you but I will concede your point

RUTH!
Im sorry but your ACLU comment is incoherant at best. As far as the constitution goes Lincolns gettysburg adress was an actual refutation of the constitution. It was the way He pointed out that the Declaration of Independance superceded the constitution in that speech that made it so famous

And Jefferson like Adams before him wasnt in office 10 minutes before he was trying to change the constitution around Adams -Alien and sedition act
Jefferson by orchestrating changes in the judiciary that was constantly defining the brand new Cnst Not a very good try actually think u coulda done better

Answer 1

That was then, this is now.

During a time before "parties" truly had a foothold, independent ideas were not exactly welcomed or respected on the surface, but the "right" thing to do was more easily done without all the media hype and financial funding.

It is a different world now. George Washington even warned us against party politics as being the demise of Democracy, and we didn't follow his heed.

We are now in a situation where there is absolutely nothing moderate about government, and anyone that feels moderate has to split a ticket.

Sad really...

Answer 2

I would disagree. I will that "liberal" does not mean weak and bad. You can have Roosevelt and Lincoln as being somewhat liberal. But Washington and Jefferson were conservative. I'll briefly discuss why Jefferson is a conservative. The fact that he was agnostic doesn't mean much just as "political affiliation does not determine your being conservative or liberal," neither does religious beliefs (not religious affiliation) in the early 1800's. Religious conservatism was not associated with conservatives so saying that he was agnostic (or atheist) doesn't make him a liberal by default in this time period.

Also, he had plenty of slaves (but did not think it was completely right). He did not act on it as a liberal might. Remember we can only judge him by his ACTIONS not really his alleged BELIEFS. All I'm saying is that he acted conservatively not liberally in office.

Jeffersonian Republicanism is NOT like today's Republicanism, so I see your point. But Jefferson advocated LIMITING government, which makes him quite conservative.

Answer 3

First I take issue with your wording of the question. then framinging it in todays politics. let me get to the point liberal in the generalist sense means open to change or reform. So by that definition there are many people that can be considered liberal.. But the context of your question implies the more modern political definition of liberal with a capital L. Liberalism in it's modern political form equates better with the word progressive and in it's extrema form progressive socialist.

now to address your premise. Certainly when judging liberal by it's basic form all the founding fathers who were revolutionaries must be considered liberal. That however was not the political divide in those days. Certainly modern Progressivism came much later starting in the mid 19th century. The political camps in the days following the the revolution were divided between the federalists and the Anti Federalists. the Federalist championed a strong central government, a strong executive and an independent judiciary. The Anti-Federalist were very wary of a strong central government and were the more democratic (small d) of the 2 factions. They believed a strong a central government diminished the States rights and distanced the halls of power from the electorate.. The also had more faith in the legislative branch of government being more representative of the electorates and the states. will. while it's an oversimplification, the Federalists believed the sum of its parts was greater than the whole and the Anti-Federalist believed that the whole was the sum of it's parts
My point is to shoe box these people into modern political context is intellectually dishonest. Both sides eschewed some concepts that would fit in nicely with modern progressive thought and conversely they had other stances better fitting modern conservative thought. To say that Jefferson has more in common with modern progressives because he had strong secularist views is no more accurate than Franklin being an independent businessman and a strong supporter of religious institutions of all types involvement in the community has more kinship with the Conservatives of today. Certainly the modern progressive aim of class equalization by wealth redistribution using the taxing authority of the government would be appallingto almost all the founding fathers

When looking at the 4 men on Mt Rushmore the only one that fits in very nicely in either modern conservative or liberal ideologies is Teddy Roosevelt. Old ruff and ready was whole heartedly a progressive in nature. He champion workers rights and environmental protection, favored strong governmental oversight of big corporations as well as governmental activism.. Lincold why certainly liberal could not be classified wholly as progressive as used in it's modern political context

In sum, as a conservative I respect your point of view and your right to hold it. I only ask in debating political differences that you are intellectually honest in the way you pursue that debate. Your point of view is as valid as mine IMHO but in trying to persuade others to believes as you do this behavior only works against your aims.

Answer 4

Sounds like urban legend to me, I'd say that's bogus, Such pairings have happened with the 3 different Presidents, Madison, Harrison and Bush, and look what happens with the Clintons, should Hillary be elected. That opens a whole possibility for Presidential couples. Personally speaking, it's entirely unclear to me that having such repeated "name-recognition" candidates is particularly good - either for institution of the Republic or for the electorate generally, since we certainly don't run candidates based on their meritorious performance in some other capacity (as Senator, Governor, General etc) but rather on name recognition which is pretty freaking sad if you ask me.

Answer 5

Why do we even have the so called party affiliations? People in government are there for one reason in my opinion and that is for there own personal gain they don't care about what is good for all its how much is going in to there pocket....I would even go as far as saying that most people in the USA are just out for there own personal gain as well. I don't claim to be affiliated with any of the parties I believe the Govt. is corrupt in all ways possible and the no easy way to fix that problem....I do understand what you are saying I just don't think it possible to get someone in any of our public offices that will see or do what is truly good for the country and not just there career

Answer 6

Jefferson owned many slaves. But he also loved them, that's why so many of his freed slaves took his last name.Jefferson freed his slaves in his will. Isn't religious freedom part of what some Conservatives are fighting for today? Abe Lincoln helped create the racism of today. Hopefully the same thing will not happen from Gay rights being forced down the throats of individuals who are not ready to understand that it is not their place to judge. The bible tells us Love the sinner not the sin.

Answer 7

Yeah, I could've done better. You would have still given me the thumbs down.

I have seen your same question posted, I don't know how many times, and usually pass it by.

The truth is, it matters not. None of these men, including your precious Jefferson, would have ever called themselves liberal by today's definition. You know it and I know it. They all believed in a moral majority. Jefferson was a deist, not an atheist. Liberal revisionism.

Answer 8

Okay.... by the way, I totally agree with you. You really need to look at the thoughts of the representatives (presidents in this case) as opposed to party affiliation. I'm tired of our two party system overall.

Answer 9

I knew there was something palatable about Mt. Rushmore.

If we carve Bush's likeness into a South Dakota landmark, may it be the tail end of Crazy Horse's steed.....

Answer 10

Yes but then again who'd want a carving of a Republican when they already look down on us plebs.