NationStates Jolt Archive

CNN poll: Most say Founding Fathers wouldn't be impressed

(CNN) -- How would the likes of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin feel about the way the United States has turned out 232 years after declaring its independence?
Most Americans say they're proud to be citizens, but most also think the Founding Fathers wouldn't be pleased.

Most Americans say they're proud to be citizens, but most also think the Founding Fathers wouldn't be pleased.

Not pleased, a majority of Americans recently polled said.

According to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, 69 percent of adult Americans who responded to a poll June 26-29 said the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be disappointed by the way the nation has turned out overall.

Twenty-nine percent responded "pleased," the only other choice given to the 1,026 respondents of the telephone poll.

Americans "didn't always feel that way," according to Keating Holland, CNN polling director. "In 2001, 54 percent thought that the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be pleased with the state of the country today."

Still, most who responded to last month's poll took great pride in their country.

Sixty-one percent said they were extremely proud to be Americans; another 28 percent said they were very proud. Seven percent answered "moderately," 2 percent said "only a little," and 1 percent answered "not at all."

The percentage saying "extremely proud" was virtually unchanged from 2005. In 2003, 70 percent said they were extremely proud, and 55 percent said so in 2001. All polls were taken in the same time period, June 26-29, as the 2008 poll.

Another question asked in June: How often should a U.S. presidential candidate wear a flag pin (when dressed in other than casual clothes)?

Forty-one percent of respondents said a candidate should always wear one. Another 13 percent said "frequently," 16 percent said "sometimes," 19 percent said "only occasionally," and 9 percent said "never."

The questions carried a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points, except the flag pin question, which had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

So, for my fellow US citizens and others, do you think the founding fathers would be pleased, dissapointed, amazed, or shocked?

I'd say it'd be a mixed bag.

tl;dr

why would they be upset? the nation they created is now the most successful nation economically and militarily in the world. I hardly think under seven hundred people can be classified as Americans. That's not even a percent of a percent of a percent our population now.

So, for my fellow US citizens and others, do you think the founding fathers would be pleased, dissapointed, amazed, or shocked?

I'd say it'd be a mixed bag.

I'd say that their opinion would probably be irrelevant, not to mention over two hundred and thirty years out of date.

tl;dr

why would they be upset? the nation they created is now the most successful nation economically and militarily in the world. I hardly think under seven hundred people can be classified as Americans. That's not even a percent of a percent of a percent our population now.

Yet another person demonstrates a complete ignorance of how statistics work.

tl;dr

If you can't be bothered to read 22 lines of text before commenting on it ignorantly, why would yo bother to comment at all?

why would they be upset? the nation they created is now the most successful nation economically and militarily in the world.

Did you ever consider that not all Americans would agree those are the goals the founding fathers had in mind? In fact, it seems that many would disagree, as you might learn if you bother to read anything.

I hardly think under seven hundred people can be classified as Americans.

Not only did you just make it clear you didn't read the article, you also don't bother to check what you post for clarity or accuracy. Why woulkd less than 700 of the more than 1000 respondants not be considered Americans? Where do you think they did their polling?

Not only did you just make it clear you didn't read the article, you also don't bother to check what you post for clarity or accuracy.

That's not even a percent of a percent of a percent our population now.

And now we see you don't understand statistical sampling.

Yes, because the Founding Fathers are channeling their amazing mind-powers to today's Americans! (If you were not chosen, sorry.) So when the chap from Havre de Grace, Maryland, being interviewed by the pollster says he is the voice of Alexander Hamilton and he is very pleased with the current USA, he is only part of a minority! When the person from Albuquerque, New Mexico says that George Washington whispered to him from his grave that he is not pleased, they are the majority, and they are really pissed! Take heed, America! Them Founding Fathers will be haunting you!

:p

I'd say that their opinion would probably be irrelevant, not to mention over two hundred and thirty years out of date.

Fair enough.

Yet another person demonstrates a complete ignorance of how statistics work.

Indeed, indeed.

More than disappointed, I think they'd be hopelessly confused.

So, for my fellow US citizens and others, do you think the founding fathers would be pleased, dissapointed, amazed, or shocked?

I'd say it'd be a mixed bag.

The founding fathers would be pleased with the economic growth of the nation and it's prominence on the world stage. They'd be horrified by wars for political gain and casual discarding of constitutional promises. Then they'd take their hundreds of years of experience, and a few million dollars of modern technology, and bomb the modern US back to the Stone Age, since setting up a fascist theocracy would probably have been the furthest thing from their thoughts.

The founding fathers would be pleased with the economic growth of the nation and it's prominence on the world stage. They'd be horrified by wars for political gain and casual discarding of constitutional promises. Then they'd take their hundreds of years of experience, and a few million dollars of modern technology, and bomb the modern US back to the Stone Age, since setting up a fascist theocracy would probably have been the furthest thing from their thoughts.

That's pretty much how the mixed bag lines up for me:

Pluses:
Economy
Prominence
Technological Innovation
The expansion of freedoms in some areas (women and minorities)

Minuses
Foreign Wars
Expansion of government
Contraction of rights in other areas

Fair enough.



Now if they had updated information and at least a partial understanding of current circumstances, then they might have a point of view worth considering.

But not much more than any other average person, I'd think. Really, even with the info available to everyone today, they're simply too out of date in mindset.

Well, with all the non-land owners, women, minorities voting I can see where they might be miffed.

You do realise that the founding fathers intended congress and the senate to be comprised of working people who went back home to run their own businesses when not sitting in debates?

They'd be horrified at the idea of proffessional politicians, and even more so at the idea of families who do nothing but politics, like the kennedys and bushes.

They also would be pretty pissed at the libs trying to restrict the 2nd amendment, and totally pissed off at the assault weapons ban. After all, they had to take up arms and beat an army, and they wouldn't like the govt of today trying to remove the chance of todays citizens being able to take on the govt on an even footing with similiar weapons.

tl;dr

why would they be upset? the nation they created is now the most successful nation economically.

According to International Monetary Fund the US are the 11th richest nation per capita, meaning that people in Norway, Switzerland and Iceland etc are indeed richer.

tl;dr

why would they be upset? the nation they created is now the most successful nation economically and militarily in the world.

The Founding Fathers would be pretty disappointed at that comment, I would think.

Considering the sheer variety of opinions and lifestyles on many issues among the Founding Fathers themselves, I'd have to say that I couldn't predict how a vote among them would turn out.

Let's face it, some would join the left wing of the Democrats and others would be toting guns, horrified that a black man is considered for President.

Considering the sheer variety of opinions and lifestyles on many issues among the Founding Fathers themselves, I'd have to say that I couldn't predict how a vote among them would turn out.

Another reason it'd be a mixed bag.

Let's face it, some would join the left wing of the Democrats and others would be toting guns, horrified that a black man is considered for President.

And there'd be more than one headed to California to get married... ;)

If the Founding Fathers were alive today, I think they'd be too freaked at having lived something like 250 years. If they were somehow transported and not aged to now, they'd be too damn freaked at having been transported through time and seeing something as advanced as, I dunno, asphalt.

Sorry, I know what the intention of this kind of hypothetical game is -- I just don't see the point. They lived in a vastly different time with different ideals. Hell, more than a few of them would wonder what all the Negroes were doing loose -- God help them if they saw one that was a cop or in some position of authority. It'd be a shame to spend the resources to get them all here and then have some of 'em die of apoplectic shock.

tl;dr

"Too lazy, didn't read."

the nation they created is now the most successful nation economically and militarily in the world.

...aaaand the blue pill sends you home.

Are kidding me? I've finally been waiting for this to happen.

The 4th of July celebrated the USA's independence, our Fathers were rolling around in their graves thinking, Oh my gosh, what happened to the country we created? They know this wasn't the direction they had intended in going. When the USA gets put into Anarchy, it's just going to get worst...

I hardly think under seven hundred people can be classified as Americans. That's not even a percent of a percent of a percent our population now.
It actually is more than a percent of a percent of a percent.;)

Actually, they might be disappointed with the spelling of the thread's title....

I think a little waterboarding in gitmo would help persuade them that everything was just fine and dandy.

The Founding Fathers were products of their time and their place; one of the reasons we revere them is their foresiight and wisdom. However, that doesn't mean they would understand or even comprehend the world we now live in.

I believe that most of them understood that politics is the art of the compromise; that change, though scary and bizarre, is inevitable; and that what matters most to one generation may not be the most important aspect of life to the next.

The best of the Founding Fathers would take the US as it is today, and acknowledge it was not what they expected. I also think they would find as much to praise as to decry.

How many here will expect the remaining 1/3 of the poll to call the Founding Fathers "Freedom Hating Liberal Commie Islamofascists" for being disappointed in the United States?

Possibly interesting means of conducting a poll on people's feelings about the US because all it really shows is what the respondents think about the state of the country. Those who think it's in a bad state will say the Founding Fathers would think it's being run badly but on the other hand...

There was an interesting article on the propensity of papers to publish any old poll these days. There is absolutely no need for them to substantiate the results, simply using them to further a point they wish to make. PR companies are great at using meaningless polls to support whatever company or industry they're looking to promote.

To that extent, I suspect this poll is more about the current presidential election, especially given the random information about flag pins at the end, I doubt CNN would promote a poll that showed flag pins being integral to one's opinion about the country.

I clicked the wrong poll option.

I'm going to have to apply for US citizenship now to make it right.

I wonder what Cheddar Man would think of Britain today?

also the founding fathers would be pissed that such a personality cult has emerged

I don't know about the rest, but I'm pretty sure Tom Paine would be pissed off.

I clicked the wrong poll option.

I'm going to have to apply for US citizenship now to make it right.
Now that's dedication!

Roy Castle would be proud.

they wouldnt know WHAT to think.

the changes of the past 232 years are so massive that its impossible to judge how good or bad it is.

I don't think the founding fathers would agree to foreign national terrorist being given the right to our court systems as if they were citizens. Especially considering that the supreme court is only supposed to interprete
the law not make it according the the US Constitution.

also the founding fathers would be pissed that such a personality cult has emerged

That I'd agree with.

I don't know about the rest, but I'm pretty sure Tom Paine would be pissed off.

Indeed, indeed.

I don't think the founding fathers would agree to foreign national terrorist being given the right to our court systems as if they were citizens. Especially considering that the supreme court is only supposed to interprete
the law not make it according the the US Constitution.

Seeing as one of the causes of the revolution was criminal prosecutions w/o due process, you could hardly be more wrong.

I think so. We are the most powerful country and most influential country in the world. If you mean right at this moment I think not but in general ABs.

It would be a mixed pot.
They would not like that we had a powerful standing military, but I think if they were given a crash course in history, they would be fine with it.

They would be pro death penalty, even though they would find torture to be an abhorent (s?) practice.

Gun wise...couldn't tell you. Sure, they wanted everybody to own weapons, but firearms are far more destructive today than ever before.

As for the way politics has gone...the idea of political parties was frowned upon by all the founding fathers (even though they formed them later on). Then again, the idea of a ruling elite (cus no matter what people say, the senate and executive branches were meant to be the elite ruling class to save the masses from themselves) would probably mean little to them. They expect politicians to be a world apart.

tl;dr

why would they be upset? the nation they created is now the most successful nation economically and militarily in the world. I hardly think under seven hundred people can be classified as Americans. That's not even a percent of a percent of a percent our population now.

You fail at statistics

700 is enough to calculate to an accuracy of 3.7 percent at a CL of 95% which is way more then necessary assuming a random sample

Yet another person demonstrates a complete ignorance of how statistics work.
Maybe you should describe this poll's methodology for the rest of us... How did they target their respondents?

Maybe you should describe this poll's methodology for the rest of us... How did they target their respondents?
Which has nothing to do with the original posters claim of insufficient sample size

Sampling bias is a different beast all together and was not a concern brought up by the poster.

So he still does not understand statistics

The founding fathers would be pleased with the economic growth of the nation and it's prominence on the world stage. They'd be horrified by wars for political gain and casual discarding of constitutional promises. Then they'd take their hundreds of years of experience, and a few million dollars of modern technology, and bomb the modern US back to the Stone Age, since setting up a fascist theocracy would probably have been the furthest thing from their thoughts.
/Threadwin

They might be a bit shocked that we did things like end slavery.

Who cares? They're dead.

Which has nothing to do with the original posters claim of insufficient sample size

Sampling bias is a different beast all together and was not a concern brought up by the poster.

So he still does not understand statistics

As the OP I'll point out that it was someone else who posibly (?) made that claim. I assume the reference is to Jaredcohenia, who's post read:
I hardly think under seven hundred people can be classified as Americans.

My comments regarding that post still stand.

Which has nothing to do with the original posters claim of insufficient sample size

Sampling bias is a different beast all together and was not a concern brought up by the poster.

So he still does not understand statistics
Maybe so, maybe not. We wouldn't know unless the methodology was disclosed. If the sample were biased, augmenting the sample size would mitigate the bias, thus confirming the doubting poster's claim.

Plus, I'd just like to see how well Kyronea understands the same subject on which he has chided another for ignorance.

All of us that DO understand statistics also understand that in this world there are three kinds of lies, "... lies, damn lies, and statistics..."

Maybe so, maybe not. We wouldn't know unless the methodology was disclosed. If the sample were biased, augmenting the sample size would mitigate the bias, thus confirming the doubting poster's claim.

Plus, I'd just like to see how well Kyronea understands the same subject on which he has chided another for ignorance.

Depending on the type of bias sample size wont mitigate it at all necessarily you are right it depends on the methodology but most of time it is closer to a shift of the curve rather then a change in shape (if that makes sense)

Either way with 200 over the minimum for the sampling range it is "enough" go give enough pad that if more was going to help correct bias it would have done so

They might be a bit shocked that we did things like end slavery.
Hardly. Gratified might be the right word.

What they would be shocked at is how much power we have allowed the government usurp from the governed.

As the OP I'll point out that it was someone else who posibly (?) made that claim. I assume the reference is to Jaredcohenia, who's post read:


My comments regarding that post still stand.

The part after that is what made me think he was complaining about sample bias

"That's not even a percent of a percent of a percent our population now" but I may have been wrong with the direction he was intending to go with it

Depending on the type of bias sample size wont mitigate it at all necessarily you are right it depends on the methodology but most of time it is closer to a shift of the curve rather then a change in shape (if that makes sense)

Either way with 200 over the minimum for the sampling range it is "enough" go give enough pad that if more was going to help correct bias it would have done so
I think we've all seen the fallibility of supposedly accurate polls this year. How bad did the Obama vs Clinton polls predict outcomes in the early primaries? It would also be very interesting to see the questions -- It's correct that a larger sample size wouldn't overcome misleading or unclear questions.

For example, I would answer 'disappointed' because this republic has allowed too much power to be concentrated in the federal government. Someone else might answer 'disappointed' because they've projected their opinion about the war in Iraq or the economy on to our Founding Fathers.

And so on... Like I said, Sam Clemens had it right.

That's not even a percent
3,000,000 of a percent30,000of a percent

300.

Actually, it was three times that amount.

EDIT: In other commentary, who is this other third? Are they blind and stupid?

Thomas Jefferson would be shocked. He thought we'd be a mainly agricultural nation. We showed him, eh?

That I'd agree with.



Indeed, indeed.



Seeing as one of the causes of the revolution was criminal prosecutions w/o due process, you could hardly be more wrong.

The point is these are are foriegn national terrorist who were doing their level best to kill american soldiers doing their duty. Do you really think they should have the right to accuse those same soldiers of attempted murder and other similiar things in american courts? If this is what you believe then perhaps you couldn't be more wrong.

Thomas Jefferson would be shocked. He thought we'd be a mainly agricultural nation. We showed him, eh?
Shocked? Probably. Disappointed because of THAT? No. Disappointed because most of us don't own small businesses? Yes.

3,000,000 30,000

300.

Actually, it was three times that amount.

EDIT: In other commentary, who is this other third? Are they blind and stupid?

Optimists.

It would be a mixed pot.
They would not like that we had a powerful standing military, but I think if they were given a crash course in history, they would be fine with it.

They would be pro death penalty, even though they would find torture to be an abhorent (s?) practice.

Gun wise...couldn't tell you. Sure, they wanted everybody to own weapons, but firearms are far more destructive today than ever before.

As for the way politics has gone...the idea of political parties was frowned upon by all the founding fathers (even though they formed them later on). Then again, the idea of a ruling elite (cus no matter what people say, the senate and executive branches were meant to be the elite ruling class to save the masses from themselves) would probably mean little to them. They expect politicians to be a world apart.

I disagree, all three branchs of government were meant to be servants of the american people ... not the other way around. They are not royalty, we left england to get away from royalty.

I don't really see the relevance of this survey. It would be one thing if we could ask some infallible Supreme Being if It was pleased with the state of the country, that might actually be useful. It would be quite another if we could ask some fallible, but still generally wise people who are well versed in modern history about its state. It would be quite another if we could ask some fallible, but still generally wise, people who died about two-hundred years ago about its state. But this survey doesn't even do that: it asks around seven-hundred random people about what they think the fallible, long-dead people would think about the state of the country.

I think the real question being asked is, "Do you personally believe the U.S. is following the principles you think it was founded on?" The pollsters should just cut out the completely irrelevant stuff about the Founding Fathers.

I don't really see the relevance of this survey. It would be one thing if we could ask some infallible Supreme Being if It was pleased with the state of the country, that might actually be useful. It would be quite another if we could ask some fallible, but still generally wise people who are well versed in modern history about its state. It would be quite another if we could ask some fallible, but still generally wise, people who died about two-hundred years ago about its state. But this survey doesn't even do that: it asks around seven-hundred random people about what they think the fallible, long-dead people would think about the state of the country.

I think the real question being asked is, "Do you personally believe the U.S. is following the principles you think it was founded on?" The pollsters should just cut out the completely irrelevant stuff about the Founding Fathers.

No I personally don't believe that the U.S. is following the principles it was founded on. I believe that some people in high government positions are trying to change those principles as we speak.

No I personally don't believe that the U.S. is following the principles it was founded on. I believe that some people in high government positions are trying to change those principles as we speak.

TRYING to? I hate to burst your bubble, but they've already started.

Idiots.

Fixed.

Fixed.
Are you saying I'M an idiot, the quoted poster is an idiot, or that the idiots trying to change the original principles are idiots?:confused:

Are you saying I'M an idiot, the quoted poster is an idiot, or that the idiots trying to change the original principles are idiots?:confused:

The people who voted that the founding fathers would be pleased with where the US is right now are the idiots.

You posted that they were optimists. I fixed it.

The people who voted that the founding fathers would be pleased with where the US is right now are the idiots.

You posted that they were optimists. I fixed it.
*Smacks self* I should clicked on the green arrow!:p

Idiots, optimists, what's the difference? jk;)

*Smacks self* I should clicked on the green arrow!:p

Idiots, optimists, what's the difference? jk;)

It's like those problems in school.

All optimists are idiots. All idiots are beneath my notice or care. Therefore, all optimists are beneath my notice/care. However, not all people beneath my notice/care are optimists.

Oops, I accidentally voted absolutely (as in, they would absolutely be disappointed in the current US.) That was a mistake, I agree with the thread title.

It's like those problems in school.

All optimists are idiots. All idiots are beneath my notice or care. Therefore, all optimists are beneath my notice/care. However, not all people beneath my notice/care are optimists.

Ah. Makes sense.

How would they know what some long-dead people would think?

That's like saying "I'm pretty sure George III would be disappointed with Britain today". Well, he might be. Or he might really admire the NHS. Or our schools, which are some of the best in the world.

Or like saying "Napoleon would be disgusted with France today". How could you know? He might be really into nuclear power or something and just not have realised it at the time. Might be pretty cheery about the French involvement in launching satellites into space. Who knows?

Hardly. Gratified might be the right word.
When most of them owned slaves? Hardly.

What they would be shocked at is how much power we have allowed the government usurp from the governed.
They switched on that position remarkably fast once they got in power. Shays' Rebellion, anyone?

I disagree, all three branchs of government were meant to be servants of the american people ... not the other way around. They are not royalty, we left england to get away from royalty.

I'm not saying that they are royalty. I'm saying that the senate was created as an upper house of elite citizens who were selected by their respective state governments as a counterbalance to the House of Representatives, which was made up of the unwashed masses.

The founding fathers were all elite white males, and believed that the majority was an unruly lot who were best led by a gentle leash.

I'd say yes, considering that the nation that we rebelled against is now more or less our bitch.

I'd say yes, considering that the nation that we rebelled against is now more or less our bitch.
:p

It's pretty hard to say, either way. I mean, at least one of our founding fathers demanded that the new government be led by a dictator. :eek:

Though, given that they were all revolutionaries, many seemed to have pretty radically advanced views for their times. After all, there was a line in the Constitution about ending the slave trade at a random date. It seems kinda... non-radical, but given the times, that was almost outlandish.

TRYING to? I hate to burst your bubble, but they've already started.

I know ... thats what I was attempting to get across.

I think the Founding Fathers would advocate a complete and utter overthrow of the current government considering how horrific it has become from Congress to the executive.

No I personally don't believe that the U.S. is following the principles it was founded on. I believe that some people in high government positions are trying to change those principles as we speak.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I'm not saying that they are royalty. I'm saying that the senate was created as an upper house of elite citizens who were selected by their respective state governments as a counterbalance to the House of Representatives, which was made up of the unwashed masses.

The founding fathers were all elite white males, and believed that the majority was an unruly lot who were best led by a gentle leash.

Actually, not true.

The entire Government system was set up to be full of the Elite upper class, and really for several decades, the masses had almost no political say.

The reason for the Senate was not a counterbalance to the 'Unwashed masses", but was actually a counterbalance to the states with large populations, which under the HoR have a massive majority of the say.

The reason why the government was set up for the elite was simple. Only White males who owned land could originally vote. This system was pretty much exactly the same as what jolly olde England had at the time, where the only people who could vote were, White male land-owners. Which were, almost by definition, the elite class.

I'm not a US citizen, and I've never been there (would like to though) but it seems that every few days I open the paper and find something new to be disappointed in the US about, it usually (http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,23977671-5006301,00.html) involves in the military though and I don't hold them as representative.

Ships made of iron?
You say the velocipede caught on?
Buildings over four stories tall?
Paved roads?
WHAT DO YOU MEAN 'MISSISSIPPI IS A STATE?
I say!

I think that the current state of the U.S. society wouldn't be exactly what T.Jefferson and B.Franklin would have wished for, judging from what I've read about them.