The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first, to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and iin the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous, whilst they continue to hold their public trust.

Perhaps Mr. Beck is unaware of Federalist No. 57, which I read as a populist manifesto — aware that progressies might take a different view. No. 57 opens by dismissing claims that “the house of representatives…will be taken from that class of citizens which will have least sympathy with the mass of the people; and be most likely to aim at an ambitious sacrifice of the continued existence of such a class? Is it unlikely that Madison offers a description of the aristocratic class, as it existed in 1788 (and as it exists today — misguidedly called “socialists” or even “communists” be conservative commentators).

What Mr. Beck did, in his heated response to Mr. Greer’s attack is provide fodder for distraction — would that Mr. Beck have responded by reference to No. 57, among other Federalist Papers.

Indeed, would the Tea Party Movement discover No. 57 which, as I read it, tells us what our Founding Legacy is all about — a legacy, it seems to me, that our neo-aristocrats would rather leave on history’s ash heap, preferring that the people defer to to them and not stand tall on the shoulders of some very wise 18th century Americans

Perhaps Mr. Beck’s dander got up when Simon Greer opened his column by accusing Mr. Beck of being “a con man.” Mr. Beck should have learned by now the fondness of his adversaries for ad hominem attack.