"Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1, 1787
Hmmm.

Hmmm.

Full quote:


History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.


The Federalist #1 (http://constitution.org/fed/federa01.htm)

My version:


History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people (starting as a community organizer); commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

Actually:
And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

Sounds even more like BO and the Democrats.

Hmmm.

Sounds like Castro and Gaddafi

Sounds like Castro and Gaddafi

And England in 1776.

Vrai ??

Expanding the quote so that you can figure out what "former" and latter is referring to, the quote is

"On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants."

Translating it into something that is easier to understand--

On the other hand, a weak government is unable to protect the liberties and rights of the people (think of the middle ages, where there was no centralized power and the land barons ruled on their whims). In fact, a government strong enough to be capable of enforcing law and order is NECESSARY to protecting liberty. An economic bully like Jay Gould is more likely to argue against government regulation on the grounds of liberty and freedom, then he is to advocate a government capable of policing order. The men who have most often destroyed republics and the liberties of the citizens therein, have done so with a cry of freedom, "stop this abusive government"

Basically the Articles of Confederation set up a really weak central government. There was a lack of order in society. For example, in our day we worry about inflation, but back then it was even worse. Individual states coined their own money and could cancel contracts. Many states had legislators pandering to teh public and these states outright cancelled their citizens debts to British firms . It was a society without the order and law for business to thrive in. Alexander Hamilton was arguing for a stronger federal government in that passage. Its a stretch to say that passage applies to Obama.

Its a stretch to say that passage applies to Obama.

Yea, but it is still fun.