A funny thing happened on the way to the Constitution

Before and after the election on November 4th there were many articles decrying or at least cataloging Obama's elitism (The New York Times) and that of his administration, supporters and congressional counterparts (National Review). And of course the "populism" of the Tea Party (now that they have people in office are they the Tea Party Party, do we refer to them as "the Teas", how about TP? No, that's short for toilet paper. Wait... no that's just rude I guess and I suppose Tea Baggers is out too) is directly in opposition to the claimed elitism in D.C.

What I find amusing about this is that these same people join Herr Beck in exclaiming "Give us back our Constitution." I find this amusing because, if there was ever a document dedicated to the preservation of an elite and the idea that elites should run the government, it is the Constitution of the United States.

The people who made up the Constitutional convention were all wealthy businessmen or plantation owners. (Washington himself eventually owned more that one hundred thousand acres.) These folks were the elite of the country and of their various states.The ostensible reasoning was quite simple: only the wealthy had the time and funds to handle the expenses associated with traveling to and staying in a place long enough to empower a government. But there was more to it than that.

John Adams for instance, stated specifically that the country should be governed by "the rich, the well-born and the able" linkHe was not the only one who felt that way and when the Constitution was ratified, suffrage was granted according to the laws of the member states and was, for the most part, limited to male property owners. In some states a significant amount of wealth was required and voters had to be taxpayers.

The Senate was originally configured as a body whose members were to be appointed by the states.(One of the areas that I agree with the Tea Party Party is the idea of repealing the 17th Amendment, which caused Senators to be popularly elected.) One reason was to allow the small states to offset the population advantages of the large states. The other reason was to offset the "mob rule"  of even the sembalance of direct democracy that the House of Representatives embodied.

So, here's the deal: Either you support the idea that the country is run by it's elites as intended by the founders, or you support the populist urge - in direct conflict with the intent of the Constitution. You can't have it both ways.

Or maybe you can. I mean one of the things the last election made clear is that good sense is not a trait the electorate is much concerned with.