Историк объясняет, как элиты США создали систему власти для контроля масс

I enjoy puzzles. Always have. Since I'm not of a mathematical bent, puzzles like Rubik's Cube and Sudoku are often out of my league. What has intrigued me for most of my adult life, however, is why my fellow homo sapiens behave the way they do. Because of decades immersed in the workings of government and politics, the puzzles I find most intriguing deal with individuals and groups of individuals as they interact within the public arena. American democracy, I was spoon fed as a child, is the finest form of government devised by the hands of men. Playing by agreed upon rules ... give and take. Negotiation and compromise. This brings up our peculiar form of electoral politics. Clunky, slow-moving and you seldom get everything you want. I was told the “Founding Fathers” designed this system of checks and balances to prevent mob rule evident in Old World peasant revolts and culminating in the bloodbath of the French Revolution. All this seemed to more or less work until Trump unleashed a dark, vigilante ugliness which, it seems, always lay at the core of our country's culture. We are, after all, a nation whose economic growth — North and South — was built on the backs of slave labor. Further, this amazing expansion was only made possible by the abundant natural resources which we stole from an indigenous people whom we did everything in our power to eradicate. The scourge of lynchings in the South, the murder of civil rights workers, the killing of little Black girls while they prayed at Sunday school. Like it or not, this is who we have been and, as the Donald reminds us, who we are now. Given half a chance, millions of Americans reveal themselves as junkyard dogs. If this view of our culture is even half true, what does that say about the future of American democracy, the best anywhere I was told. What also does it say about Jefferson, Madison, Adams and all the rest? Their lofty words spoke of trust in the goodness and wisdom of the common man. When they drafted the Declaration of Independence, the constitution and the Bill of Rights, however, did the signatories really believe that we, as a people, were capable of ruling ourselves? Did they really believe they were giving birth to a nation where savagery would be held in check by a government “by the people and for the people?” That is the puzzle for which I have struggled and, until recently, I stumbled my way in darkness. The answer, I have now unearthed, is somewhat simple and explains almost everything I have been led to believe from childhood onward. For Tom Jefferson, a “yeoman democracy” was inherently good and would endure. As I survey the devastation of civil liberties and respect for law that evangelical Christians and MAGA soldiers have wrought in such a short time, that fits too. This is nothing new. The racism and misogyny have always been a part of how our culture programs most Americans. These currents ran deep even in Jefferson’s day. If this is so, how could those wise Founders mouth such platitudes about Americans’ capacities to avoid the slaughter and butchery of European history? Simple. Do you suppose Alexander Hamilton lunched with Joe the plumber? Imagine John Adams sitting down over a pint with Fred the garbage collector. I'm guessing such interaction was almost nonexistent. Those well-bred, rich white guys believed in such a view of humanity because those they knew personally or professionally were all prosperous and well-educated. They all looked the same. White, male ... not a drunkard or indentured servant among the lot. The Framers definitely weren’t stupid. They knew that outside their privileged classes lurked the unwashed, unruly undependable masses. Thus, they crafted a system which would keep the rabble in check. Only white males owning property were allowed to vote. The Senate wouldn’t be elected by popular vote until 1913. Why then, all the rhetoric about the civic virtues of the average Joe? These were, we must assume, honorable and honest men. Consider their breeding. To heap scorn on the groundlings who shod the hooves of their thoroughbred horses would have been bad form. They were also realistic. They knew war was coming ... a war that would not be fought by members of their privileged caste. They celebrated the fiery words of those hotheads who were not of their number: the Thomas Paines, Sam Adams and Nathan Hales who served a purpose which was to rally those yeoman farmers to put down the plow and take up arms in what would prove a long, bloody conflict. “These are the times that try men's souls and the summer soldier and sunshine patriot will shrink from the service of their country” was not coined by a wealthy planter or merchant. Nor were “I regret that I have but one life to give to my country.” Perhaps the real answer to this puzzle is found in the violent suppression of the armed uprising, Shays’ Rebellion. In 1786-87, this Massachusetts farmer realized that the Revolution in which he and others had fought, merely replaced one set of wealthy masters with another. In summary, the ruling elites spoke as they did because the expansion of their economic and political power, once the British were booted, depended upon the commoners believing in the mythology. McGehee, a lifelong activist, settled here in 1973 and lives in Palouse with his wife, Katherine. His work life has varied from bartender to university instructor to wrecking yard owner.