A lot of interesting food for thought here. I do want to add two things to what you wrote. One is an addition in agreement to what you said regarding the education system, the other a bit of context to add to the Madison observation.
1) As you said, our education system is designed to reward obedience and to stifle critical thinking. The model of US education is based off of Prussian military indoctrination and has never truly veered away from it. US public education formation is a fascinating history and it explains so much as to why we have a population utterly incapable of critical thought at times. It is by design.
2) I want to add some context to the Madison bit. He DID say what you quoted, and it is mind-boggling that the quote is not shown verbatim in schools. However, in this instance, he was referring to the reason they needed to establish the US Senate specifically, not that every facet of the US government needed to protect the opulent minority. His greatest fear was that US society would succumb to the "tyranny of the majority" and all of his ideas are devoted to ensuring that no one group had too much unchecked power over another.
If you look through the federalist papers (no.51 to be exact), Madison was a strong believer in "checks and balances" across all aspects of US government. This included protecting the wealthy against the "tyranny of the majority" through the Senate, but also protecting the states against the federal government, and ensuring that no one group had too much power over everyone (including the wealthy not having too much power over everyone else). "Checks and balances" is a term used ad nauseum, but Madison was a strong believer in it. I highly recommend reading Federalist paper number 51 if you get a chance because it's insightful and is the foundation for a lot of US government today for better or for worse. Here's the Wikipedia version of it:
Jefferson said that "sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him?" Madison concurred with this sentiment that human beings are not angels, and that there needed to be a system in place that ensured that problematic people could not get too much power, control the whole country and rule it with an iron fist. Do I think that this vision mentioned above panned out? No... Not really. But I do think this is important context to add when talking about Madison. To use the quote you mentioned as proof that he wanted an oligarchy and/or had contempt for the common person misses the larger context as to why he said what he said.
Keep up the good work, really been enjoying your articles as of late when I get the chance to read them. Especially the Lieven one and the one regarding Yemen.
I forgot to respond to the Prussia thing; sorry about that. I definitely agree with the criticism but I tend to just focus on what the ideal is and how the education system could be pushed toward that ideal; I PERSONALLY don't have a huge interest in delving into the history of how our education system became this way but it's definitely an important topic and definitely a useful topic and the history is definitely damning.
Maybe I ought to care more about this history? Maybe I should think about that!
Someone told me this about the "clamours and combinations" quote, but I need to check with a scholar about this matter:
In this letter, Madison was deploring the collapse of his ideal of a republic governed by honorable gentlemen who would serve the common good, not by corrupt “stock jobbers” (the Wall St of the day). It had nothing to do with the Hamiltonian developmental model, a different matter.
I'm not too worried about the Madison thing in this piece, but rather I'm worried about his "clamours and combinations" quote; I really should've checked the context of that more because it sounds like a straightforward complaint about special interests but now I'm not sure if Madison's complaint had basis and if Madison HIMSELF was even the special interest. So I might have to publish a correction or something if it turns out that quoting Madison on that front was inappropriate.
As for the Madison thing in this piece, he's talking about elections and he's talking about the Senate and he's talking about the structure of the system; I'm not trying to say that this quote is damning in and of itself or anything but he said it in secret and he said vague things about balancing things in public so doesn't it seem like a situation where he let his hair down in private?
Yes I appreciated the shout out! I thought the Yemen article rock solid article start to finish. You hit the nail on the head.
The quote you mentioned regarding the opulent minority is consistent with all of his writings in the federalist papers he wrote. In the discussion the quote is from, you can tell that his overarching sentiment was to ensure checks and balances. He could have worded that statement better, but the quote you mentioned does not contradict any of his writings in the Federalist Papers as far as I know. The discussion where he says that is a long one and this is one quote of hundreds of pages of debate. My memory is foggy as to all that was said in that private discussion, so maybe there is something I am missing.
I do not see a reference to the "clamours and combinations" quote you commented about in your article anywhere. I am aware of what you are talking about though, and to this day I do not have a clear picture as to what he meant by this. I tend to agree with your interpretation. He seems to be lamenting the concentration of power amongst the wealthy and the erosion of checks and balances. This is the letter he sent where he mentioned clamours and combinations. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-22-02-0017
We agree across the board on indoctrination, especially education. Your approach regarding writing about education makes sense. The question becomes whether or not there is a different historical model with success you could latch the ideals of quality education onto. When you can point to historical precedent of a system people use that develops critical thinking skills in a more effective manner (maybe Finland?), it makes it way easier to move people out of their propaganda bubbles as to what good quality education looks like. The reality is, people need to understand that they do not have to keep structuring educational development in the same way that Prussians did it hundreds of years ago to achieve better quality education. The history helps people understand why education today is outdated and problematic.
That said, it is not necessary to go through the history of the US educational model to convince people of that. We all know US education is sub-par at best, so historical context is not needed there.
The main thing to continually ask is whether there is an historically superior model we can emulate and build off to improve the future of education. Personally, I think the Prussian model that was the foundation of modern US public education is extremely broken, hence why I wanted to bring it to your attention. Whether or not you want to explore the history of education is entirely up to you. All I can say is you are giving the right information on this matter and asking the right questions.
1: I feel like the Yemen bill has little hope to pass; that's rather bleak, isn't it?
2: In terms of the Afghanistan crisis and the war in Ukraine, there's no specific activism to recommend and no bill in Congress to recommend, right? That's bleak.
1. I like this bill's chances better now than I did when it first passed with bipartisan support in 2019 and was subsequently vetoed by Trump. The votes are there, it is just a question of whether A) Congress will back down on this now that they know the President could actually sign off on it (see: ACA repeal failure in 2017) or B) If Biden is in bed with the Saudis enough to veto it like Trump was. I give this resolution about a 35% chance of getting through and signed, up from 0.0001% back in 2019.
2. Not any at the moment with major traction that I know of but if one emerges I will certainly let you know. You can find and track all bills going on in Congress here https://www.congress.gov/
3. Oh yes, this is jogging my memory now. Personally, I agree with your interpretation and would not worry about that too much. Curious to see what the scholars you reached out to say.
A lot of interesting food for thought here. I do want to add two things to what you wrote. One is an addition in agreement to what you said regarding the education system, the other a bit of context to add to the Madison observation.
1) As you said, our education system is designed to reward obedience and to stifle critical thinking. The model of US education is based off of Prussian military indoctrination and has never truly veered away from it. US public education formation is a fascinating history and it explains so much as to why we have a population utterly incapable of critical thought at times. It is by design.
This article I found to be helpful in understanding the history of public education in the US. I highly recommend reading it when you get a chance. https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/local-features/local-lifestyle-columns/eye-on-education-prussia-model-influences-american-public-school-system/
2) I want to add some context to the Madison bit. He DID say what you quoted, and it is mind-boggling that the quote is not shown verbatim in schools. However, in this instance, he was referring to the reason they needed to establish the US Senate specifically, not that every facet of the US government needed to protect the opulent minority. His greatest fear was that US society would succumb to the "tyranny of the majority" and all of his ideas are devoted to ensuring that no one group had too much unchecked power over another.
If you look through the federalist papers (no.51 to be exact), Madison was a strong believer in "checks and balances" across all aspects of US government. This included protecting the wealthy against the "tyranny of the majority" through the Senate, but also protecting the states against the federal government, and ensuring that no one group had too much power over everyone (including the wealthy not having too much power over everyone else). "Checks and balances" is a term used ad nauseum, but Madison was a strong believer in it. I highly recommend reading Federalist paper number 51 if you get a chance because it's insightful and is the foundation for a lot of US government today for better or for worse. Here's the Wikipedia version of it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._51#:~:text=Madison%20emphasized%20that%20a%20system,are%20not%20necessarily%20all%20angel
Jefferson said that "sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him?" Madison concurred with this sentiment that human beings are not angels, and that there needed to be a system in place that ensured that problematic people could not get too much power, control the whole country and rule it with an iron fist. Do I think that this vision mentioned above panned out? No... Not really. But I do think this is important context to add when talking about Madison. To use the quote you mentioned as proof that he wanted an oligarchy and/or had contempt for the common person misses the larger context as to why he said what he said.
Keep up the good work, really been enjoying your articles as of late when I get the chance to read them. Especially the Lieven one and the one regarding Yemen.
I forgot to respond to the Prussia thing; sorry about that. I definitely agree with the criticism but I tend to just focus on what the ideal is and how the education system could be pushed toward that ideal; I PERSONALLY don't have a huge interest in delving into the history of how our education system became this way but it's definitely an important topic and definitely a useful topic and the history is definitely damning.
Maybe I ought to care more about this history? Maybe I should think about that!
Someone told me this about the "clamours and combinations" quote, but I need to check with a scholar about this matter:
In this letter, Madison was deploring the collapse of his ideal of a republic governed by honorable gentlemen who would serve the common good, not by corrupt “stock jobbers” (the Wall St of the day). It had nothing to do with the Hamiltonian developmental model, a different matter.
Thanks so much for commenting! I really appreciate it!
Did you comment on my piece here, which quotes you? https://join.substack.com/p/the-concrete-steps
I'm not too worried about the Madison thing in this piece, but rather I'm worried about his "clamours and combinations" quote; I really should've checked the context of that more because it sounds like a straightforward complaint about special interests but now I'm not sure if Madison's complaint had basis and if Madison HIMSELF was even the special interest. So I might have to publish a correction or something if it turns out that quoting Madison on that front was inappropriate.
As for the Madison thing in this piece, he's talking about elections and he's talking about the Senate and he's talking about the structure of the system; I'm not trying to say that this quote is damning in and of itself or anything but he said it in secret and he said vague things about balancing things in public so doesn't it seem like a situation where he let his hair down in private?
Yes I appreciated the shout out! I thought the Yemen article rock solid article start to finish. You hit the nail on the head.
The quote you mentioned regarding the opulent minority is consistent with all of his writings in the federalist papers he wrote. In the discussion the quote is from, you can tell that his overarching sentiment was to ensure checks and balances. He could have worded that statement better, but the quote you mentioned does not contradict any of his writings in the Federalist Papers as far as I know. The discussion where he says that is a long one and this is one quote of hundreds of pages of debate. My memory is foggy as to all that was said in that private discussion, so maybe there is something I am missing.
I do not see a reference to the "clamours and combinations" quote you commented about in your article anywhere. I am aware of what you are talking about though, and to this day I do not have a clear picture as to what he meant by this. I tend to agree with your interpretation. He seems to be lamenting the concentration of power amongst the wealthy and the erosion of checks and balances. This is the letter he sent where he mentioned clamours and combinations. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-22-02-0017
We agree across the board on indoctrination, especially education. Your approach regarding writing about education makes sense. The question becomes whether or not there is a different historical model with success you could latch the ideals of quality education onto. When you can point to historical precedent of a system people use that develops critical thinking skills in a more effective manner (maybe Finland?), it makes it way easier to move people out of their propaganda bubbles as to what good quality education looks like. The reality is, people need to understand that they do not have to keep structuring educational development in the same way that Prussians did it hundreds of years ago to achieve better quality education. The history helps people understand why education today is outdated and problematic.
That said, it is not necessary to go through the history of the US educational model to convince people of that. We all know US education is sub-par at best, so historical context is not needed there.
The main thing to continually ask is whether there is an historically superior model we can emulate and build off to improve the future of education. Personally, I think the Prussian model that was the foundation of modern US public education is extremely broken, hence why I wanted to bring it to your attention. Whether or not you want to explore the history of education is entirely up to you. All I can say is you are giving the right information on this matter and asking the right questions.
Cheers!
1: I feel like the Yemen bill has little hope to pass; that's rather bleak, isn't it?
2: In terms of the Afghanistan crisis and the war in Ukraine, there's no specific activism to recommend and no bill in Congress to recommend, right? That's bleak.
3: This (https://join.substack.com/p/is-there-hope-for-america) is the piece with the "clamours and combinations" quote that I'm worried about; I asked a scholar for input on that front.
1. I like this bill's chances better now than I did when it first passed with bipartisan support in 2019 and was subsequently vetoed by Trump. The votes are there, it is just a question of whether A) Congress will back down on this now that they know the President could actually sign off on it (see: ACA repeal failure in 2017) or B) If Biden is in bed with the Saudis enough to veto it like Trump was. I give this resolution about a 35% chance of getting through and signed, up from 0.0001% back in 2019.
2. Not any at the moment with major traction that I know of but if one emerges I will certainly let you know. You can find and track all bills going on in Congress here https://www.congress.gov/
3. Oh yes, this is jogging my memory now. Personally, I agree with your interpretation and would not worry about that too much. Curious to see what the scholars you reached out to say.