If the Founding Fathers were exhumed and brought back to life, which party would they support: D, R or L?

Question

I can't see how any honest person could answer anything besides "Libertarian."

Fred Sanford, they'd be brought back to life using the same machine that the Republicans used to create Katrina.....

"Todays liberal professors now call them conservatives."

Yes - last generation's liberal professors felt the same way - Hofstadter et al.

Jim "globalization" just means that when we buy things from overseas the gubmint doesn't take a big slice of it.

And "lack of a manufacturing base" are you kidding?????

We've lost a handful of manufacturing JOBS - - - - in terms of value, we manufacture more STUFF than ever.

Answer 1

Republican.

Classic liberalism (individualism in the 1700's ) in America is the same as conservatism in its modern form.

Modern liberals, generally, are collectivists and all of their denial in the world wont change that.

The founding fathers' values and the Republican party' values are very similar.

Do to the increase in extreme leftism in the U.S., the founding fathers are no longer seen by modern liberals as being liberal. Todays liberal professors now call the founding fathers the term conservative.

Answer 2

Based on how our election system is run
The huge amounts of money that it takes to become a politician
The special interests out of control
The people with only their representatives really looking out for them as the reps are really in the back pocket of corporate America.

I'd say, none of the above and Thomas Jefferson would then say, "It's time for a change" Then slaughter the lot of them.

===========

We have some serious problems facing this country and all we can argue about is things like illegal immigration which doesn't affect the vast majority of us. But things like our lack of a manufacturing base and globalization does, our lack of planning, our wars, our debt does.

Peace

Jim

.

Answer 3

Well, assuming they came back and decided to vote as a block, they would probably look at both sides of the political aisle and give them both a huge thumbs down as being too divisive and petty. They may even break into the National Archives, destroy the Declaration of Independence and demand to be readmitted under British Rule since the current leaders have gummed up the works so bad.

Answer 4

They would find federal government passing so many reams of legislation that they can't even take the time to read it all. The constitution is only 4 pages long.

They would find taxation without representation. Do the elected federal officials in your district represent you or someone else?

They would see the ticking time bombs the federal government has institutionalized for itself by meddling with the money system, involving itself in foreign entanglements and dishing out entitlements that destroy individualism.

They would be libertarians, which is in itself a peaceful, civilized, principle based REVOLUTION.

Answer 5

None of the above. The parties of their times had completely different agendas than ours. Their thoughts on what's constitutional and what's not are entirely different. Besides that, I think they'd hate to see the lack of options that have been created. They'd be sad to see the state of the Libertarian party, as well as the Green, which both have unique views but have never gotten close to electing a candidate to the presidency. They would also hate to see how close the Democratic and Republican parties are, both trying to squeeze towards the midline in politics rather than taking independent views.

Answer 6

First, you'd have to stop them spinning in their graves over what has happened to their beloved Republic. Then they would be Libertarians, strongly supporting individual rights and a free market economy. May I suggest also exhuming Barry Goldwater? He's no doubt spinning over the demise of his beloved Republican Party, so he'd go Libertarian too.
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/goldwater.html

Answer 7

Although my leanings are Libertarian [since it's "almost" like a non-party party] I have to concur with those who say NONE. I quote the Founding Father himself, President Washington, from his Farewell Address:

>> "I have already intimated to you the danger of
parties in the state, with particular reference to the
founding of them on geographical discriminations.
Let me now take a more comprehensive view and
warn you in the most solemn manner against the
baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our
nature, having its root in the strongest passions of
the human mind. It exists under different shapes in
all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or
repressed; but in those of the popular form it is
seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst
enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another,
sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party
dissension, which in different ages and countries
has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is
itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length
to a more formal and permanent despotism. The
disorders and miseries which result gradually incline
the minds of men to seek security and repose
in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner
or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more
able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns
this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation
on the ruins of public liberty...

There is an opinion that parties in free countries
are useful checks upon the administration of the
government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty.
This within certain limits is probably true—
and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism
may look with indulgence, if not with favor,
upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular
character, in governments purely elective, it is a
spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency,
it is certain there will always be enough of
that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there
being constant danger of excess, the effort ought
to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage
it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a
uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a
flame, lest instead of warming it should consume..." <<

These warnings HAVE BEEN IGNORED and the conduct of government in the District of Columbia casts DISGRACE and DISHONOR upon the name and memory of that GREAT MAN, Washington.

Answer 8

Libertarian, of course, at least initially. (The names would confuse them too - "why are the Democratic-Republicans split into two parties, and why are they both acting like the Federalists they opposed in our day?") Once they were fully briefed on events since thier demise, they might be forced to re-think that, though.

Perhaps they'd lead a second revolution to get things back on track. ;)

Answer 9

Honey, in the event that they have been further back to existence right this moment, they could fall genuine back into their graves! it isn't the loose united states of america they predicted. They warned us approximately interest communities and great government and we've shamingly rejected their warnings. examine the Federalist papers. They observed an united states of america the place human beings pulled themselves up by skill of their own working bootstraps. An united states of america the place loose industry grew to become into fairly that. If a huge company is going and receives into hardship then they could desire to bypass down. think of of it like a cleansing cycle. What you have left are properly run company that should thrive. One could think of that democrats who hate great company besides could shoot down a bailout for them. Oh, and shame on the Republicans who voted for this mess too. Tribeca- they had to guard the church from government, no longer any opposite direction around. One u . s . a ., under God... In God, we have faith... Laus deo...

Answer 10

I'm pretty sure they wouldn't support any party, they would probably call us all godless savages sinners, and bastards. Despite the fantasy people live in, our founding fathers were about as open minded as fundamentalist muslim terrorists. They believed women should know there place, and that men should fight wars, all this B.S. about rebuilding Iraq, or even caring about another country would completely elude them. Well except Franklin, he'd love the half naked women, and how they are even easier now than they were back then. Assuming that anybody in our society would even know who he was.

Answer 11

Who's to say? First of all, we only THINK we know their motivations and concerns, but we can only see them through our twenty-first century perspective, and they'd be examining us through their Eighteenth century perspective.

Second, um... who cares? We know they weren't Gods, right? They'd be just as likely to be wrong as we are.

Third and finally, are you sure they'd support a party at all? It doesn't seem to me that the constitution was written with political parties in mind. Political parties came afterwards, didn't they?