The Republican Wisdom of Machiavelli

[Jacquerie]

The accepted dogma among many conservatives is that the way to save what remains of our republic is to vote conservative, constitutionalist, virtuous men and women into office. History shows that to be a blind alley, a dead end that occupies many minds, all the while evil men get away with high crimes.

It’s a pity that electoral history going back decades have failed to disprove their belief. Most of the conservative candidates we send to congress go wobbly, rino or worse. Meanwhile, no congressional rats ever turn conservative.

Clearly, there is something outside the power of personal character and public virtue that has soured the world’s sweetest experiment in liberty.

The Framers weren’t the first to figure out that the key to liberty was division of power. By 1787, that concept, which is largely forgotten today, was actually old hat.

In 1513, a far lesser known influence on our framing generation began a review of the Roman Republic. Drawing chiefly from Livy’s Histories, Niccolo’ Machiavelli took a fresh look at old models. What he drew as Roman lessons for his contemporary republic of Florence, the maxims therein were well known to our Framers and certainly apply today.

From his Discourses on Livy, of fundamental importance to any republic is a government that “establishes in it to take for granted that all men are evil and that they will always act according to the wickedness of their nature whenever they have the opportunity.”

He drew from the experience of early Romans, whom he credited with regularly improving their republic. In general, it was the key to its longevity. In particular, the constant tension between the few and the many was finely tuned over the centuries. Plebs and nobles had their distinct powers, and when one overstepped its bounds, the other was ready to defend its political turf. Through regular improvements to their republic, Machiavelli described early republican Romans as being on the straight path which could lead them to perfection.

From his perspective, republican Rome’s four hundred year life was a successful quest in the achievement of government perfection.

When challenges arose, Rome didn’t revert to the ages old cycle of monarchy/despotism, followed by aristocracy/oligarchy, and finally republicanism blowing up into anarchy.

Consider similarities with the life-cycle of the American Republic. Like the Romans, we started off under monarchs. Upon independence, we established distinct democratic republics. Soon thereafter, a loose governing structure in the form of a state dominated, (federal) confederation proved strong enough to cast off the British yoke. When that structure proved insufficient to secure peacetime public happiness, the people accepted a new design of government in the form of our Constitution, in which the states thoroughly participated, yet they shared power with representatives of the people. As when Rome established Tribunes of the people, America also followed a straight path toward perfection when it included a House of Representatives in its legislative body.

Further improvements in the form of fine adjustments to the republic followed. These include:

1791. Ten Amendments which acknowledged some God-given and societal rights.
1865. An amendment that eliminated the British imposed institution of slavery.
1868. The 14th Amendment that reinforced personal and societal rights guaranteed in the Declaration and Bill of Rights.

Until 1913, Americans remained on the straight path which could lead them to perfection.

Instead of strengthening the republic in the face of societal and economic change, Americans betrayed themselves. Overnight they weakened the freedom enhancing structure of their government. With the 17th Amendment they tossed confederal government and embraced a democratic republic, which history has shown to be precursor to anarchy, followed by tyranny.

They cut and pasted an inferior popular form over a finely tuned freedom enhancing federal form. Without adjusting enumerated powers which were designed with the assumption that the states would forever participate in congress, America substituted freedom with democracy as it’s central tenet.

There isn’t much time to step back on the straight path to republican perfection. Obama is gathering despotic powers as quickly as he can. Little stands in his way.

Yet, we can avoid the historic cycle of despots, oligarchy, democracy, anarchy. Article V of the Constitution is there, it is within our grasp. We must take it, restore federalism, or join history’s long list of failed republics.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Another anti-17th tirade dead horse flogging. Sorry, Jacq, I don’t want to empower corrupt legislators to choose my Senators for me. It didn’t work before, and it sure as hell won’t work now.

[Jacquerie]

I’ll continue to promote the wisdom of the ages.

[RC one]

Yet, we can avoid the historic cycle of despots, oligarchy, democracy, anarchy. Article V of the Constitution is there, it is within our grasp. We must take it, restore federalism, or join history’s long list of failed republics.

we would be lucky if we could get one amendment. Could we all even agree on what it should be?

[9thLife]

Faust’s birthday?

[LS]

It is not true that no Dems ever turn conservative. In the 80s about 40 Dems consistently voted with Reagan and many (Tauzin comes to mi d) completely switched parties. The problem since 2000 is that the Dems have totally purged all sensible people.

[Usagi_yo]

You’re foolish for thinking that the current system is better than the pre-17th system. You’re an example the article points out, you’ve lost the 2nd and 3rd level thinking ability and therefore cannot see why the previous system is light years ahead of today’s.

[upchuck]

Your suggestion for something better? Something incorruptible? Read the tag.

[PGalt]

The more recent wisdom of Philip Freneau…

6. But the grand nostrum will be a public debt…

9. The management of a great funded debt and a extensive system of taxes will afford a plea, not to be neglected, for establishment of a great incorporated bank. the use of such a machine is well understood. If the Constitution, according to its fair meaning, should not authorize it, so much the better. Push it through by a forced meaning and you will get in the bargain an admirable precedent for future misconstructions.

7. It must not be forgotten that the members of the legislative body are to have a deep stake in the game. This is an essential point, and happily is attended with no difficulty. A sufficient number, properly disposed, can alternately legislate and speculate, and speculate and legislate, and buy and sell, and sell and buy, until a due portion of the property of their constituents has passed into their hands to give them an interest against their constituents, and to ensure the part they are to act.

8. The ways in which a great debt, so constituted and applied, will contribute to the ultimate end in view are both numerous and obvious. (1) The favorite few, thus possessed of it, whether within or without the government, will feel the staunchest fealty to it, and will go through thick and thin to support it in all its oppressions and usurpations. (2) Their money will give them consequence and influence, even among those who have been tricked out of it.

11. As soon as sufficient progress in the intended change shall have been made, and the public mind duly prepared according to the rules already laid down, it will be proper to venture on another and a bolder step toward a removal of the constitutional landmarks.

Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/freneau/republic2monarchy.htm

http://www.usdebtclock.org

[nathanbedford]

Of course the idea of the founders was not for you to choose your own senators, they gave you the opportunity to choose your own house member but not your own Senator. Senators were to be elected by legislators just as the president was to be elected by electors.

If you say that it is preferable to permit the people rather than their legislators to elect their senators, must you not take the application of democracy one step further and declare that people from Georgia should be able to vote for a senator from Massachusetts? After all, once you disregard the idea of federalism and dispose of the rights of states as entities to participate in the politics of the Republic, why stop with the legislatures? For that matter, why not let all the citizens of a state vote for all of the representatives from that state? Or, why not let citizens of all the states vote for representatives of all the states? Certainly, we should let all the citizens of all the states vote equally for president.

If you support federalism up to the point of dividing votes and apportioning them among the states, then you support the idea of a state as an entity playing a role. Why should democracy be curbed to conform to state boundaries but not curbed to conform to a state's elected representatives?

The founders obviously thought of the states as contributing entities to our common weal and wanted to protect their contribution. It is not just that you are granted or deprived of a vote for your Senator, it is that the state as an entity is denied the opportunity to contribute in order to give you yours. To set the limit on geographical borders seems to be no less arbitrary than to deprive you of your vote within a state's geographical boundaries.

If you think that the Democratic election Al Franken or Chucky Schumer is to be preferred to the election of Webster, Lodge, Calhoun etc. that is an opinion which is not quite as clear as enthusiastic proponents of democracy imply.

[central_va]

Another anti-17th tirade dead horse flogging. Sorry, Jacq, I don’t want to empower corrupt legislators to choose my Senators for me. It didn’t work before, and it sure as hell won’t work now.

You statist fool, KMA.

[PGalt]

More recent…

Socialism Is Legal Plunder

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G022

http://www.usdebtclock.org

[PGalt]

Interesting discussion. Thanks to every poster. BTTT!

[fieldmarshaldj]

Wisdom of the ages is empowering corrupt legislators ? You have a very distorted perspective, Jackie.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I’ve actually researched it. It didn’t work as the founders hoped, and it’s why it was lawfully changed via amendment process. Folks were tired of the epic-level corruption.

[hosepipe]

People that still think “WE” can elect our way out of this mess are delusional..

Have no idea how broken the voting system is...
Voter fraud is Sooo bad literally no one knows how bad it is..
Not everywhere....... just in MOST PLACES... especially north east and left coast.. but not only there..

Who wins in both parties (by and large) is who is supposed to win..
Many alleged stanch conservatives are in fact RINOs..

Many here are fighting the political war of 30 years ago.. maybe 50..
and refuse to update their realities..

WORSE.... the democrats KNOW IT!..
Saul Alinsky was a genius from the dark side..

[fieldmarshaldj]

My suggestion is that many that have the franchise now should not. No one receiving federal largesse (either federal employees, with the exception of the military, or those receiving federal welfare/subsidies, et al, excluding social security, which should be phased out and/or privatized) should be able to vote. You can either have the right to vote or you can loot the treasury, but you cannot do both. We cannot ever get back to the small government of the founders unless something along those lines are done, because little else is going to work to curb the mess we’re in.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I do not trust my state legislators, one reason I do not wish them to choose my Senators (both of whom are bad enough to begin with). U.S. Senators were initially to serve at the pleasure of the state legislators and follow their instructions on how to vote — that was the ideal. As soon as Senators realized that they were guaranteed 6 years regardless, especially after a hostile legislature was seated making demands upon them to vote in an opposite way, most decided they would vote as they pleased and not step aside, and it was no longer what the founders envisioned.

Hence, the bloom was off the rose before the Civil War even fired up. You’re not getting that genie back in the bottle again, and it is sheer fantasy to think that we’ll ever get statesmen of that era back with the current electorate. You’ll just get more looters of the bankrupt treasury, even from Conservative states.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Hey, you might luck out and get Ed Gillespie with repeal. Of course, he’s not a Conservative. You’re not going to get a Mike Farris. If you’re fine with liberal RINO big gubmint looters, repeal should suit you just fine.

[nathanbedford]

You’ll just get more looters of the bankrupt treasury, even from Conservative states.

Ah, an excellent argument in support of Article V (quite apart from application to 17th amendment).