The Failure of Democracy?

As news continually updates us with more impassioned protests, screaming pundits, and overall mass divisiveness across the nation, if we can backup a bit perhaps these thoughts might offer an explanation of what has been happening. Let us see if we can accurately describe the current state of affairs. The “United States had become a nation polarized by specific regional identities… The Democrats... emphasized the right of individual states to create and enforce laws… The divide in the parties can be seen in the state’s political newspapers… Debates about the bill erupted throughout the nation. Despite public opposition, Douglass, “utilizing all his powers of argument, his prestige, and his mastery of parliamentary tactics [forced] the bill through Congress by the narrowest of margins.” Yes, I admit there was a certain level of cherry picking used to make the quotes fit, but I think you get the point. Please do not think I am particularly targeting the Democratic party of today as a parallel of the pro-slavery Democrat party of the 19th century. That discussion would distract from the issue this hopes to address. That is, the level of political division in this nation is not uncharted territory and perhaps if we take a step back there might be some perspective to gain on the causes.

I do not think it is too much to compare the current political climate today to that leading up to the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act. Namely, there are bouts of unrest across the nation over hotly divided issues, which at large might be summarized as Identity Politics which more or less follow clear political partisanship divides. Sentiments were strong and divided about who gets to govern whom, and the federal system at large was in question. Insert the overused quip about those who do not remember history here. The nice thing about remembering history is the prospective we have, especially when there is a plethora of recorded writings and plenty of time to separate us from the passions of the time. We can have a clear understanding of the sentiments at the time while being isolated enough that the issue is less personal in nature.

Conventional lectures on the road to the Civil War highlight the competing powers between the North and the South that started as soon as independence was gained and continued until the most costly war in our history “settled” it. Consider this perspective, if we were to take a proportional comparison of the Civil War to our current population, 6.5 million people would have lost their lives. The typical lecture might highlight the expansion of the territory in the US and the designation of slave or free as the overall cause. In that approach the point of no return might be the Compromise of 1850, the Dredd Scott decision, or Lincoln's House Divided speech. It might highlight the shift in understanding of the institution of slavery itself, from the Peculiar Institution which Thomas Jefferson thought it to be, to the Positive Good by the late 1830’s. This shift in philosophy fomented the institution that made it worth defending to enough people that it eventually lead to war.

Ultimately, I point to the breakdown of the institutions put in place that prevented our nation from being a direct democracy. These institutions are described in detail in the Federalist, those would be; separation of powers, extended republic, bicameral legislature, and the electoral college to name a few. Summed up, the Federalist system as defined by the Founders and illustrated in the Constitution. There are volumes of writings extolling the virtues and understandings of these structures and I am but a pup in the presence of academic giants. Unfortunately, unless one was home-schooled, there is a very good chance the Federalist or a serious consideration of the Founding documents were not considered unless one took a proactive posture to understand the Founding.

The Separation of Powers essential purpose was to ensure each branch of government would conflict with one another, competing for greater power in their respective branch. In doing so, the three way competition would result in each branch being limited to their own respective range of authority. Imagine giving three children a pie to share in which two children get to make the slices and the third gets to choose which piece to take. It would be in the self interest of the two slice makers to attempt the most even division, in order to maximize their self interest. The 20th century saw a shift in jurisprudence which has furiously sought to judge the law not from the bindings of the text of the statutes, but from the greater wisdom of the judges to accomplish a sort of “justice” not found in the text of the laws under question. For these many decades the Legislature, who has the explicit and exclusive right to make law, has seen fit to abdicate that power in the most controversial issues, because the lifetime appointment of the jurists allow it. Why would a congressperson risk upsetting their constituents if a judge will accomplish the same goal? There are many issues with the Legislature not doing their duty, this is one of the grandest abdications.

The Extended Republic was the notion that the nation would be so diverse that no majority faction (party) would be able to successfully quell the minority. This model essentially spoke against the two-party system. While it is true that within a couple years of the Constitution’s ratification, the very authors separated into parties, for the first hundred years of American politics, third parties held a legitimate place of influence at the federal level. It was not until the 20th century that parties made rules in the House and Senate that continued to grow to the point that third parties are realistically a wasted vote in national elections. One of the most caustic aspects how parties fulfil the right definition of “factions” is how they control committee assignments and maintain a hierarchy of representatives. The best suited representatives are not put in committees for their fitness but instead because they have pleased the party powers to be rewarded with the places of greater influence.

The Bicameral Legislature is the most deliberate sign that direct democracy is not a good thing. The balance of power within the legislature itself, between the House and Senate clearly illustrate the Founders concern of the passions of the people (or mob) should not rule. This was the solution to learned men who considered how the best form of government is made through a social contract while simultaneously and deliberately creating space to slow the process of governance. A majority faction can easily stir a group of people to get any law passed regardless of Constitutionality. The bicameral legislature soothed those passions. Keep in mind, in the original form, Senators were selected by state legislatures. I think one of the most grievous amendments to the nation has been the direct election of senators in the 17th Amendment. This has lead to people so focused on what the Federal government does and an inverse attention to what the state does. The legitimate slowing of the deliberative republican process was the best answer to the diverse regions of the nation. As the nation expanded, the diversity of regions also expanded, hence extending the republic further, that might ensure even greater agreement in the federal laws passed. In the same way, the Electoral College accomplished that goal for the presidency. The legitimacy and need of the Electoral College has been in question a handful of times in the recent decades but in reality it only confirmed that we are a federated republic not a pure democracy. We cannot be a nation of coastal urban elites, or rural lords, but a consensus of the regions.

This is far from a complete analysis of the present political climate, but hopefully these suggestions might add context to your considerations of what this nation was founded to be and what it should become. There are numerous scholars who recognize these things but also recognize the social contract made at the Founding was made to an entirely different society, hence we are being constrained by the rules of the dead. That is a consideration that is worthy to be made. I tend to side, that before we replace the rules of the dead, perhaps we should understand what they made, the issues they addressed, and if we could do better.