Jacobin⁠60%

The Founders Never Meant the US to Be a Democracy ⁠92%

By Doug Henwood⁠0%

7/1/2026, 9:32:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Left Leaning Bias, Genetic Fallacy, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 62.3% saturation with 213 hits. Analysis detected 1,538 faulty-reasoning hits from 342 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠92% (1,723 of 21,182 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.90% of the article peer group.

One of the great contradictions of American life is that we think of ourselves as a democracy, a model for the world, but one with a profoundly rich elite that exercises enormous influence over politics. 
Although we often feel (correctly) that democracy is eroding in the United States, we shouldn’t forget that, despite our image, our state was never designed to be a democracy. 
Our situation, in which an insanely rich oligarchy is nudging aside the last remnants of popular power, emerges from the governmental structures that James Madison and his fellow Founders intended. 
It was no accident, as the vulgar Marxists used to say, that our first president was one of the richest guys in the newborn country. 
Madison, born into the Virginia slave-holding planter elite, made plain in the Federalist Papers, the essays he coauthored with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay to secure ratification of the new Constitution, that the system he helped design was meant to protect the few against the many. 
In the most famous of these essays, Federalist No. 10, he argued that economic inequality did not arise from exploitation or inherited privilege but from natural differences in human talent. 
Madison took the logical next step from this understanding: he rejected democracy outright. 
A pure democracy would be “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.” 
Instead he argued for a republic governed by elected representatives, which would “refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country.” 
The aim would be to guard against “a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project.” 
For Madison and the other Framers, the danger to be guarded against was not the power of economic elites — which is the class they came from — but the threat to those elites posed by the mob. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.6%Doug Henwood: 22.2%Jacobin: 5.8%Confirmation Bias19.6%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 2.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Doug Henwood: 4.0%Jacobin: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias3.8%This article: 13.2%Doug Henwood: 11.0%Jacobin: 6.5%Framing Effect13.2%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 4.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.3%Doug Henwood: 6.4%Jacobin: 1.8%Pessimism Bias17.3%This article: 19.3%Doug Henwood: 14.8%Jacobin: 7.9%Negativity Bias19.3%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 3.4%Jacobin: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 19.9%Doug Henwood: 7.7%Jacobin: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error19.9%This article: 13.5%Doug Henwood: 3.4%Jacobin: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 2.8%Jacobin: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 24.6%Doug Henwood: 6.1%Jacobin: 0.4%Primacy Effect24.6%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Doug Henwood: 5.5%Jacobin: 1.7%Ad Hominem7.3%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 6.1%Jacobin: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.5%Doug Henwood: 12.1%Jacobin: 3.2%Appeal to Authority20.5%This article: 14.9%Doug Henwood: 6.5%Jacobin: 2.7%False Dilemma14.9%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 2.3%Jacobin: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.8%Doug Henwood: 1.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Circular Reasoning3.8%This article: 11.1%Doug Henwood: 11.3%Jacobin: 8.1%Hasty Generalization11.1%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 5.8%Jacobin: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 11.4%Doug Henwood: 5.0%Jacobin: 1.7%Begging the Question11.4%This article: 16.1%Doug Henwood: 8.0%Jacobin: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.1%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 13.5%Doug Henwood: 3.4%Jacobin: 0.6%Composition/Division13.5%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 21.9%Doug Henwood: 5.5%Jacobin: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.9%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 31.9%Doug Henwood: 16.9%Jacobin: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy31.9%This article: 24.9%Doug Henwood: 6.2%Jacobin: 1.4%Unattributed Quote24.9%This article: 17.0%Doug Henwood: 5.3%Jacobin: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection17.0%This article: 62.3%Doug Henwood: 39.9%Jacobin: 11.3%Biased Writer Voice62.3%This article: 8.5%Doug Henwood: 2.1%Jacobin: 3.3%Indoctrination8.5%This article: 46.5%Doug Henwood: 32.2%Jacobin: 7.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias46.5%This article: 0.0%Doug Henwood: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Doug Henwood: 1.8%Jacobin: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.3%

342 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker51%attributed speech167writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageJames Madison • 46 words • 100.0% coverageJames Madison • 30 words • 100.0% coverageJames Madison • 13 words • 100.0% coverageJames Madison • 14 words • 100.0% coverageJames Madison • 41 words • 100.0% coverageJames Madison • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

James Madison

100%flagged-word coverage
175 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-73.7 ptsWriter: 100.0%James Madison: 26.3%26.3%Politically Left Leaning B-41.4 ptsWriter: 67.7%James Madison: 26.3%26.3%Unattributed Quote+48.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%James Madison: 48.6%48.6%Quote-first Misdirection+33.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%James Madison: 33.1%33.1%Indoctrination-17.4 ptsWriter: 17.4%James Madison: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -15.0 ptsWriter: 15.0%James Madison: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.