I’m surprised, @wundayatta, that you have read into anything that I wrote or have written in the past in this forum that leads you to believe that I still go for all of the various myths that we were fed as children. Surely you know that I don’t subscribe to that any more.
I do think that desperate times sometimes bring out the best in people. I suspect that without the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln (and Robert E. Lee, for that matter) would have been footnotes to history, and little remembered today. Ulysses S. Grant would have been a cashiered officer and a drunk, and would never have had the second chance that he had.
Likewise Eisenhower, Roosevelt and a lot of others that we now (well, some of us, anyway) look on with great fondness.
If the experiment now known as the USA had not been successful, we would not have remembered our founders. Since it has been so successful – in its way – we’ve gotten to a point of relative comfort, prosperity, complacency. The revolutionary leaders we had then would more than likely be malcontents (well, they were malcontents then, too, weren’t they?) facing a much stronger foe on its own ground. Not so likely to succeed. On the other hand, Martin Luther King, Jr., will be remembered as a founder of sorts, too, and deservedly so. He faced a pretty implacable foe, too, and defeated it.
So the men who were the political hacks of their day are now generally thought of as “Founding Fathers”. The experiment in limited government worked, and worked pretty well, for a long time. They get the credit. Hell, they deserve it, just for what they did. It was a remarkable achievement.
But heroes turn to villains with regime change. Lenin was once thought of very highly in a place that was once known as the Soviet Union. Not so much any more. (Stalin at least saved the nation – or was in the position as “supreme leader” when the nation saved itself – so he is still regarded with a certain respect. I guess anyone who can kill up to 20,000,000 of his own people should be accorded a certain degree of “respect” ... and distance.)
I expect that unless we change back to the “leaner and meaner” government that we had prior to the 20th Century that we’ll change to a country that would be unrecognizable to its founders, and the Constitution – as much as I hate to think it – will be rewritten. (This was a particular genius that I attribute nearly solely to John Adams, by the way. The Massachusetts constitution – which he invented and wrote – served as the model for the Federal instrument. And that was an experiment that had never been tried on any national level on the planet, as far as we know. Hagiography or not, the man was a genius.) When the Constitution is rewritten along the lines that many seem to want now, with more focus on government and less on individual liberty as “outmoded” and “past its sell-by date” and “no longer relevant to the times we live in”, then more people will have an attitude surpassing yours, even, and look on the founders with contempt for having such barbaric ideas: freedom to think and speak as you will? freedom to defend yourself? freedom from an all-intrusive state who wants to “improve” your life and “take care of you” and “make you safe”? Barbaric. I hope I don’t live to see the day.
I guess we also disagree to a large extent on conditions now vs. then. I think people today a far, far less “tough” than they were in colonial and post-colonial days. I sometimes think on cold winter days, for example, what it must have been like to live an entire life without electricity, central heating, hot running water (or even cold running water), indoor plumbing of any kind, horse-drawn transportation (if you were lucky and could afford it) and no prepared foods of any kind. Tough? Man, that had to be tough. We have it easy. Unless you’re living under a bridge you have it better than any king from those days.
I thank you for your vote, though. Not that I would ever seek it.