political mathMitt Romney was pilloried because he had the audacity to tell the truth.  He was recorded in a closed meeting as saying that 46% of the people in the United States would not vote for him no matter what.  This of course was blasted out at the time as being a terrible, sexist, racist, homophobic, statement but the fact is it was the truth. Pundits and columnists and the nattering class have said the same thing over and over again.  One commentator said that about 45% of the electorate will vote for a Democrat candidate even if that candidate is “a box of rocks”.  I thought that proposition had been proven when Al Gore almost became President but then that was the year that J Dub was.  Republicans seem to be in the same boat.

Almost of all our politics are pretty much divided right down the middle and every one keeps complaining that “nothing ever gets done”.  I actually have the view that is as it should be.  The Constitution was actually designed in such a way as to insure that not a lot gets done, and that what does get done was not forced down an expecting electorate’s throat.  If all the safe guards in the Constitution were understood and followed something like Obama Care would never have been part of our problems now.  The idea was the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of government watched over by a non – partisan press would pretty much cancel out the most egregious  over reach that governments will naturally attempt.

Since government cannot seem to control itself today a natural kind of separation has taken place where there is in almost very major debate a split that is pretty close to half and half.  Believe it or not, in a representative Republic which we are designed to be as a nation, that may not be a bad thing.

The guy who most people agree was the author of the Constitution and most definitely the writer behind most of the Federalist Papers, the lead up to the Constitution, was James Madison.  He addressed the idea that the country could grow beyond the original colonies and it would be, politically, a good thing.

In a book about Andrew Jackson entitled strangely enough, “Andrew Jackson – His Life and Times”, author H.W. Brands wrote this about Madison –

“In a small republic, one or two factions could easily conspire against the general interest, engineer a majority, and subvert the liberties of the rest. In a large republic, the factions would be more dispersed, rendering conspiracy and subversion more difficult and rare. “Extend the sphere,” Madison said, “and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or, if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other.” What others considered a weakness of large republics— the dispersion of their people and the diversity of their interests— Madison touted as a strength.” *

H.W. Brands, “Andrew Jackson – His Life and Times” New York, Random House 2003 page 48