When Beliefs And Opinions Get Confused With Convictions, Dialogue and Compromise Become Impossible
Benjamin Franklin is credited with the above remark about our constitutional republic, in response to a woman (Elizabeth Willing Powell) who asked him about the fruits of the labor of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, September 17, 1787. Franklin had just completed a round of discussions and statements and a call for closure to the President of the Congress (George Washington, VA) in light of persuading three delegates who were not going to sign, where he expressed the view that their efforts had produced about as close a document as achievable, given the amount of angst and disagreements that remained among the delegates. From the piece:
While the speech was formally addressed to Washington (VA), the Convention’s president, its purpose was to convince the three delegates who had announced their refusal to sign the Constitution—Gerry (MA), Randolph (VA), and Mason (VA)—to abandon their opposition. Franklin began on a note of humility. “I confess that there are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.”
“In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government, but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered; and believe further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government.”
Franklin was an elder statesman of the convention and intuitively knew the problems faced if those engaged in the deliberations allowed the “great” to be the enemy of the “good” and refused to regard the emerging compact as a framework to be instantiated in law by congress.
Our congress to this day very rarely achieves “great” legislation else the very pursuit would freeze the process like a deer in the headlights destined for badness.
That does not insinuate that most legislation is fated for bad outcomes, merely that compromise-negotiations-dialogue-more often lead to executable legislation than the opposite.
That we continue to abide by and govern under the framework and provisions of this document some 238 years later is a tribute to these founder statesmen’s foresight and their vision of a working template for the governing of a nation with scant regard for the historic failures that were all too readily known about and apparent to the delegates.
As I write this our government is shut down-once again-in perhaps the most non-serious and trivial effort in our lifetimes where our elected representatives seem so far removed from the legacy of the statesmen who provided the scaffolding for their efforts that it calls into question whether Franklin’s answer remains settled.
The facts of the current shutdown are instructive in judging todays political climate, as the democrats want to negotiate while the republicans insist the motion on the table is based on a clean continuing resolution where there is no change to the bill previously passed and therefore nothing in the bill to negotiate: in 2025 it doesn’t matter.
Does it seem crazy that many of the issues that spawned the efforts above (e.g., the Constitutional Convention) are being revisited in the 21st century? I’ve written about this before more than 3 years ago (The Shot Heard Round The World) as a warning about where our country was heading in the wake of democrat lawfare efforts against Trump and his orbit that championed increasingly violent ANTIFA and Black Liberation Revival Movement groups.
While efforts to counter such acts was met by dogmatic hostility and lawfare against such groups as the 3 %ers, Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and the Praetorian Guard.
The latter groups were roundly condemned by the entirety of the LSMBTGA and have been neutered through collusion and lawfare and lawsuits: they are no longer a viable counter force to the left’s increasing violence. Leaving the proverbial field of battle to the leftist groups.
While the former have grown in an unholy alliance funded by billionaire donors and have embraced a bigger tent strategy that includes the pro-Hamas/free-Palestine effort, increasingly unhinged and violent pro-Trans activists, the “LGBTQMOUSE+” coalition, abortion upon demand activists, anti-Trump groups as well as socialist/communist and pro-illegal alien, anti-ICE and anti-“lawfare” (when applied against them) crowd.
Lawfare in the context of the strategy of the out of power party consists of widespread, well-funded efforts to counter through lawsuits any and all Trump administration efforts to exercise authority, no matter how big of a stretch such lawsuits are nor to what practical degree they fundamentally undermine the best interests of the democrat party by waging warfare against so-called 80-20 issues where the public opinion is overwhelming.
The Trump administration is ultimately prevailing, winning some 90% of these lawsuits based on strict interpretation of the law. With lower courts increasingly guilty of disregarding and “slick willying” their judgements in manipulative defiance of their own chain-of-command, the supreme court.
The above-described Shot Heard Round the World article is not just a story from several hundred years ago. In brief the British had moved on the colonies-particularly in and around Concord, Massachusetts to confiscate arms and weaponry from the colonists in a punitive action resulting from protestations and demonstrations about “taxation without representation.”
The Brits had already started shutting down and censoring unfriendly or “subversive” periodicals, closing down Boston Harbor after the Tea Party incident and then installed Gen Thomas Gage as governor in 1774. Who promptly fired John Hancock from his command of the Governor’s Independent Company of Cadets (First Corps of Cadets.)
We do well to remember that in the midst of all manner of dialogue intended to resolve myriad issues, that many convention attendees owed their wealth, standing and status to good relations with our British overseers. Who exacted taxes, imposed censorship, restricted public activities, extended curfews and was embarking on an effort to seize arms and munition stores.
An argument one might also make about recent years activity of our elected officials as somewhat the latest in the lineage of very similar bad behavior. Where our representatives are similarly beholden to special interests, donors, lobby groups and party(ies) that all seem to represent a priority for their attention over the people they were elected to represent. Does that seem a tad bit hyperbolic?
How do you explain when an elected official is knowingly going against the grain-on the wrong side-of a known 80-20% issue? We want our elected officials to be thoughtful, somewhat independent thinkers-with emphasis on “thinkers,” vice independent-who are mindful of the word “representative”. But there is no reconciling a representative who consistently, continuously and blatantly votes against his constituent desires. These are called ex-representatives at all levels, although congress currently seems “flush” with such members.
Franklin’s response to Ms. Powell was recognition that such a pact as cobbled together was somewhat tenuous, given the varied interests and deferred issues accrued along the way to reach an agreement. Compromise in pursuit of an approved document was merely somewhat of a band aid or temporary remedy for deferred issues that might otherwise prevent any agreement at all.
The major issues were attended to, including that of all men being created equal, God given rights, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc. There are many who scoff or deride the basic framework that constituted these bedrock principles of government to this day, particularly with regard to the issue of slavery. The bottom line on some of these deferred issues is they had to be touched upon but left somewhat ambiguous else the baby would go out with the bathwater.
Any who believe these righteous men completely disregarded thorny issues such as slavery have not done their homework in terms of the Federalist Papers that were created and written explicitly to explain the logic, sentiment and construction of their work. What comes through and resonates throughout is the knife’s edge tightrope-like act expressed in these documents that were written in the spirit of compromise to appease the entire convention.
We have a right to expect that any US citizen would not only be familiar with the founding documents but also clear on important aspects that were specifically addressed and called out. That goes ever so much moreso for our elected representatives charged with upholding their oath of office in true faith to their constituents who sent them to office.
And yet we recently had Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia make a statement in congress as part of his official duties representing his constituents that evidences complete ignorance of his oath as reported in this article from The Hill authored by Jonathan Turley. Kaine’s comment from the piece:
“The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes,” he said. “It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia (sic) law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities. They do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.”
Turley offers up the following clarification-should it be needed-to offer help to Senator Kaine:
That view is captured in the Declaration, which states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Kaine represents Virginia, the state that played such a critical role in those very principles that he now associates with religious fanatics and terrorists.
And also:
Kaine’s view — that advocates of natural law are no different from mullahs applying Sharia law — is not just ill-informed but would have been considered by the founders as constitutionally blasphemous.
He is, regrettably, the embodiment of a new crisis of faith in the foundations of our republic on the very eve of its 250th anniversary. This is a crisis of faith not just in our Constitution, but in each other as human beings “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
The ”extremely troubling” part of the above is that Senator Kaine’s oath of office-typically sworn to on a bible, pledging fealty to the constitution-swears to the exact opposite of what he apparently believes to be the case.
I don’t believe he is the only confused or (???) elected official in Washington.
Many years ago Theodore Roosevelt clarified many of these issues that I will cover in part 2.
Max Dribbler
23 October 2025
LSMBTGA: Lamestream media echo chamber (LMEC-L) social media (SM) big tech tyrants (BT,) government (G) and academia (A)
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: AmericanFreeNewsNetworkSubstack
TruthSocial:@AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA