Posted on 11/20/2022 6:32:00 AM PST by Jacquerie
There’s an ages-old problem with republics: majoritarian tyranny.
If the law is whatever the fifty percent plus one of the people or their reps determine, then the legislative body is little different in practice from the typical Florida Homeowners Association, and the nation should expect similar results. Thanks to the 17th Amendment, the Senate long ago abandoned its deliberative nature and adopted the passionate, popularly reflexive nature of the House. It is why party interests, rather than those of the nation, came to dominate congress. We see this regularly when Senator Schumer joins Speaker Pelosi in wild proposals that threaten liberty.
The Framers based their solution to the danger of majoritarianism on their assessment of human nature. Early at the federal convention, James Madison asked:
What motives are to restrain mankind? A prudent regard to the maxim that honesty is the best policy is found by experience to be as little regarded by bodies of men as by individuals. Respect for character is always diminished in proportion to the number among whom the blame or praise is to be divided. Conscience, the only remaining tie, is known to be inadequate in individuals; in large numbers, little is to expected from it.
Instead of reliance on religion, virtue, or conscience, they would depend on the realistic, admittedly ignoble, but reliable inclination of men to follow their self-interest as the path to good government.
They would establish a republic in which the public good is advanced in the same way that commercial prosperity is achieved – individuals pursuing matters for their own benefit. It’s in the interest of every employee to satisfy their employer, and popularly elected servants will follow the good as well as bad inclinations of their constituents. Identically, so did the Framers’ Senators protect the interests of their employers: the state legislatures.
Many modern constitutionalists, especially Article V opponents, base their solutions to bad government on pleas to elect better men and women.
In turn, the nation could trust these altruistic angels to reliably execute the enumerated powers in Article I § 8 and prohibitions in sections 9 & 10. Unfortunately, this straightforward belief is not the first safeguard to liberty and justice baked into the Framers’ Constitution. Instead, their keystone to free government was a senate of the states, one that wasn’t isolated from the people, but one sufficiently small in number and far enough from the people’s immediate demands to take the long view and to deliberate for the better good.
Thus, the structure of their new government, not the morality of its participants or even the parchment barriers of Article I, was the Framers’ gift to good and enduring government. The only hope for republican government they believed was the establishment of a constitutional institution that, by accommodating “the ordinary depravity of mankind,” would make it in the interest, even of bad men, to act for the public good. Self-interest, the Framers earnestly believed, was the one check that nothing could overcome and the principal hope for security and stability in republican government. To avoid majoritarian tyranny, promote stability and preserve liberty, the structure of the Framers’ “more perfect union” retained the dominant feature of the Articles of Confederation: the states. It worked.
Are any other people as politically involved as Americans? We have caucuses, primaries, general elections, referenda to pass laws and state constitutional amendments from sea to sea, and yet our liberties are less safe with the passing of every election cycle.
We often read, “people get the government they deserve,” but I’ll never accept that any American is born into, or deserves, life under corrupt democratic tyranny.
Good article. As the author pointed out, the 17th Amendment wrecked everything. I’m in an analogy mood, so I’ll say it’s like removing a load-bearing wall in a house to have a bigger living room. You’re gonna pay for that decision eventually.
And there’s no going back. The 17th Amendment is here to stay. The people have the right to pick their own senators, dontchaknow?
>>If the law is whatever the fifty percent plus one of the people or their reps determine,
I doesn’t take fifty percent plus one in our current two-party system.
First, because the two parties are similar, about 40% don’t bother to vote.
Second, suppose that the two parties split the rest with 35% for the dominant party in the jurisdiction and 25% for the subordinate party. Then in the primary, 20% of the voters can nominate the candidate who will win in the general if there are two running for nomination, and less than 20% can control the nomination if only a plurality is needed.
The two party system is designed to allow a small fraction of the population (originally the WASPs) to control the government.
To avoid majoritarian tyranny, promote stability and preserve liberty, the structure of the Framers’ “more perfect union” retained the dominant feature of the Articles of Confederation: the states. It worked.
Would you rather have a corrupt central government or 5 corrupt states and 45 “good” states.
Abortion has been moved back to the states. Gun rights is moving back to the states. Encourage this trend and be encouraged by the trend.
https://kirkcenter.org/conservatism/ten-conservative-principles/
Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.
Yes but without the money they couldn’t do much damage. Steal peoples salaries, call that income. All the money in the US at your disposal direct tax without apportionment. Glenshaw Glass
Good article. As the author pointed out, the 17th Amendment wrecked everything.
Do you undertand what a republic is? The word repoubli9c doesn’t not stand for representation. A republic is a nation of laws where all are equal under it.
A democracy is majority controls and the majority changes it’s mind frequently. That is the problem, not the two party system.
Many modern constitutionalists, especially Article V opponents, base their solutions to bad government on pleas to elect better men and women.
In turn, the nation could trust these altruistic angels to reliably execute the enumerated powers in Article I § 8 and prohibitions in sections 9 & 10. Unfortunately, this straightforward belief is not the first safeguard to liberty and justice baked into the Framers’ Constitution. Instead, their keystone to free government was a senate of the states, one that wasn’t isolated from the people, but one sufficiently small in number and far enough from the people’s immediate demands to take the long view and to deliberate for the better good.
“Good article.”
While I wholeheartedly agree that our government has gone off the rails (with not much hope of sanity anytime soon), I’m not so sure the 17th amendment is the problem.
After all, look around the world at so-called democracies; they are all in steep decline. To name a few, that list includes the UK, Germany, New Zealand, Australia, France, Italy, and on and on and on.
And then take a look at history. Since we started this journey of civilizations 5,000 or so years ago, not one civilization has lasted forever. No, not one. They all spiral into oblivion sooner or later. Some more soon than others. Actually, China is the longest-surviving civilization/country on the planet, and they did this by reinventing themselves numerous times over the years — sometimes it was for the better and sometimes for the worse.
It has become clear that our form of government is clearly not immune to collapse/failure. So, that begs the question, what is the best form?
I’m certainly not smart enough to answer that question. But there has to be something better than waiting until we pass from this earth to reach true peace and contentment.
Centralize it.
Centralize it.
You really want a centralized government. A fast efficient centralized government.
https://kirkcenter.org/conservatism/ten-conservative-principles/
No, the 17th helped to centralize the corruption.
Yes, and more.
The post-17A senate was to respond to the people’s needs, and free the senate from corruption and wealthy interests. Progressives built their movement on the promise of cleaner government less subject to corporate influence and bribery, and a more responsive and efficient senate that dealt effectively with the issues of greatest concern to the people.
Or, by making sure there were far fewer people to bribe, it was all deception ... just like all of progressivism has grown by deception.
and a more responsive and efficient senate
We want easy answers.
The anti abortion people think the problem is solved with the judicial ruling.
A more responsible efficient govt is our enemy. People don’t understand the intentional inefficiency our Founding Fathers built into the system.
>>It has become clear that our form of government is clearly not immune to collapse/failure. So, that begs the question, what is the best form?
There are two semi-stable forms of government: monarchic and oligarchic. The monarchic form is stable due to an alliance between the strong central leader and the lower classes. The oligarchic form is stable due to an alliance between a reasonable number of powerful leaders and the middle class.
Historically, a people oscillate between the two. A Charlemagne comes along, consolidates power, and becomes the great leader of the nation. His successors are weaker, tend towards incompetence, and power diffuses to the barons, supported by the nobles.
Power only devolves to the lower classes during revolutions, and then only temporarily until a Napoleon, Stalin, or Mao appears on the scene.
The US Constitutions shows an attempt to create a middle ground balancing the monarchical aspects of the President with the baronial aspects of the Senate and House. US participation in wars always shifts power to the President. That had occurred during the Civil War, but the Senate had reclaimed power during the last half of the 19th Century, supported by the robber barons. However, the Spanish-American War, the acquisition of American colonies, Teddy Roosevelt’s “progressive” Republican Party, and the looming conflict between European Empires shifted the power towards the presidency.
Note that the 17th Amendment, the income tax act, and the Federal Reserve System all happened in 1913.
Thanks. I get that.
For the purpose of western civilization, western Europe (our heritage for the most part) was a monarchy in the period following Charlamaigne (which was an attempt to rebuild a portion of the Roman empire).
Nation states evolved after the middle ages, so we can trace our roots back to around 1300 or so (as we were coming out of the so-called dark ages and into the Renaissance/modern age). So, let's say by about 1500 AD, the nation-states in western Europe existed. That is 500 or so years ago. For us in the US, it goes back to 1776 or about 250 years.
Will Europe survive as we know it? It is not looking too promising at the moment.
While Rome (in the west) lasted for about 700 years (750 BC to 400+ AD), Pax Romana lasted only about 400+ years.
And then there are the civilizations that date back to the Sumerians. Some were massive and survived for a while, like Egypt, the Hittites, Babalon, etc. But, in the end, they all fell by the wayside.
It is a little premature to bury ours, but the west is clearly headed down the same path. At the same time, Asia is improving their lot in life. So, the trend is not promising.
By the way, it seems that regardless of the type of government, it is leadership that drives the ship and makes the most significant contribution to success. We in the west certainly have our share of some strange leaders, much like Caligula and Nero, only different deficiencies -- but deficient nonetheless.
And some form of democratic government gave us that, and it seems to now be letting us down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.