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.

[Kenny Bunk]

....it was already tried and it didn't work. That latter point fails to register with the anti-17th folks.

It is possible that the 17th Amendment was an over-reaction to the post civil war corruption endemic in statehouses, and also to the control the Republicans enjoyed in the post civil war era. The level of blatant corruption is probably much less likely now. The 17th was also a gift to the Democrats, Progressives, and Socialists who had been stymied in the Senate.

By now, IMNVHO, we have tried the 17th for 100 years, and again, the Senate is not working. Our Republic's system of "checks and balances" has become very out-of-balance, tipped toward more and more central government. The issue needs to be one of the topics addressed by the "Convention of the States."

IMNVHO, The Senate has once again become a corrupt body. The original purpose of the Senate under our Constitution was NOT to directly represent the people of a State. It was to represent the interests of the Legislature of that state and through that, the interests of the sovereign state itself.

This may sound unfair to the modern ear. But the people are already well represented by the House on the Federal Level, and by their State Legislatures, not to mention county and municipal representatives.

There seems to be a difference of opinion on the 17th Amendment. Let's meet in Constitutional convention and vote. In some ways, we're back to square 1 in this discussion. That is, does one say, "The United States IS? Or do we use proper 19th C grammar, "The United States ARE?"

[Jacquerie]

Your links are an excellent resource. Article V opponents should check out a few of them.

[BillyBoy]

>> You have it exactly backwards. The reason we have only one Ted Cruz is because of the 17th Amendment. < <

Ah, yes. If only the 17th amendment were repealed, all the Texas state legislators that OVERWHELMINGLY endorsed Dewhurst over Cruz for the U.S. Senate would instantly change their minds and endorse some Tea Party candidate that from outside the system is openly hostile to their pals in the TX GOP establishment.

Makes as much as sense as the anti-17thers always blaming the 17th amendment for the 16th amendment being enacted (no doubt time travel was involved in that one, as AuH2ORepublican and myself pointed out)

[BillyBoy]

>> It is possible that the 17th Amendment was an over-reaction <<

I think it was an UNDER-REACTION to corrupt politicians. They should have done something about our system of unelected federal judges being able to serve for life while they were at it, and we'd be much better off a century later. Right now, the only way we can remove those tyrants is through impeachment.

Hilariously, Rick Perry is an anti-17ther who favors AMENDING the constitution to ELECT federal judges. So apparently it "destroys our Republic" if the constitution is changed to elect Senators, but "saves our Republic" if the constitution is changed to elect judges (even though the framers didn't intend us to elect either). Or maybe Perry and his bots think its only accept to amend the constitution when he's the one doing it.

[BillyBoy]

>> There seems to be a difference of opinion on the 17th Amendment. <<

Not really, since your viewpoint is fringe position that I doubt you could get a majority of conservatives to support, let alone the public as a whole. (no matter how loudly that fringe group screams that they're right and anyone who doesn't agree with them is a "progressive statist") It's like saying "There seems to be a difference of opinion on repealing the 13th amendment, let's have a convention on the matter and consider the argument that things were better under slavery"

Unfortunately for you, the 17th amendment will be repealed when hell freezes over.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Yawn. I will use the word “approve” (which is a term that means “express support for”) instead of “propose” as I damned well please. And, apparently, you will continue to keep spouting nonsense about how directly elected Senators are solely to blame for the destruction of state sovereignty, when the 16th Amendment was approved by 2/3 of the Senate (elected by state legislatures) and by majorities of 3/4 of the state legislatures themselves. So those wise and loyal state legislators are to blame for the federal government running roughshod over the states.

[fatman6502002]

Double yawn. Senators do not ratify Amendments - and yes I note you’ve changed your terminology all of a sudden previously you stated that Senators ratified, but “support for” is not ratification no matter how much you insist that they are the same, only the states can ratify, period. It takes 2/3’s of the Senate AND the House to PROPOSE an Amendment and it takes 3/4’s of the states to RATIFY an Amendment, thus the Senate had no role in ratification. And even if your false thesis were true history hath now shown that direct election of Senators is a far worse method for populating the Senate than allowing the state legislatures - who’s interests are supposed to be represented by Senators - than by direct election. It is now clear that with direct election of Senators corruption has increased; the national political party’s influence has increased dramatically over the selection of Senators, to such an extent that Senators now represent the political party’s interests not their states interests; direct election of Senators has destroyed the state’s ability to have their appropriate control, as envisioned by the founders, of the legislative and budget process in DC which in very big part has led to the explosion of absolute control by the feds and the huge national debt that has been accumulated since it ratification; it is the root cause of the now nearly ignored doctrine of Separation of Powers. And yes I agree that the 16th has contributed to that debt also but considering both of them harmful - in the sense that the 16th gave the feds more money to spend and at the same time the 17th took away any control the states had on the budget process - are not mutually exclusive idea’s. I would still like an answer to the question as to why you would so vociferously support one of the major progressive idea’s for the transformation of the US. The transformation of the US did not start with Obama, it started in 1913 when the progressives were able to get the 17th and the 16th ratified. They have been playing the long game and your support for their most cherished accomplishment in that regard is surprising, well maybe not. After all you seem to claim that direct election of Senators increased the power of the people, ironically history has shown that it only increased the power of the federal government and the national political parties.

[Kenny Bunk]

Unfortunately for you, the 17th amendment will be repealed when hell freezes over......your viewpoint is fringe position.....

I guess there's no use, then, in trying to get you to join me in an effort to repeal the 19th Amendment?

BTW, anyone who doesn't agree with them (ME) is a "progressive statist")

Doubtless some are. However, I think it fair to say that we are living in an increasingly "Progressive," and increasingly powerful centralized state. This might even be a reflection of the will of a majority of the voters. There you have the essence of a federal democracy as opposed to the controlled democracy of a Republic composed of sovereign states.

I doubt you could get a majority of conservatives to support, let alone the public as a whole.

But what's wrong with putting the idea on the table? Gets shot down, it's shot down. The thing ain't working right, according to the original blueprint. WTH, we're Americans, we can fix them!~

[Kenny Bunk]

......... true history hath now shown that direct election of Senators is a far worse method for populating the Senate than selection by the state legislatures - whose interests are supposed to be represented by Senators. An excellent case could be made that corruption has increased...... Senators now represent political party interests, not their state's
Direct election has destroyed the states' ability to have appropriate control, over the legislative and budget process in DC...... led to the explosion of absolute control by the feds and the huge national debt accumulated since ratification;
Direct Election of Senators is the root cause of the now nearly ignored doctrine of Separation of Powers.

Probably true. So, now what? How exactly do we get rid of the 17th? I think it safe to assume the impetus will not come from the floor of the Senate! After all, the Senate is composed of the most privileged people on this planet. These people, botox, hair plugs, and all have the wealth of kings and the sex lives of rock stars. They are not likely to go quietly into that good night over some mere Constitutional principle.

[Usagi_yo]

"Your conclusion is in error."

tl;dr

[fatman6502002]

there is already a movement amongst the states to declare an Article 5 convention, in fact 3 state legislatures have already passed such legislation. Ultimately it is up to the people to demand it. Considering how apathetic the American public has become about defending their country, their rights and their former Republic, I will admit I am not very confident that it will ever get done. I am fearful that our Republic is gone forever. And that the apathy that has led us to this moment has been educated into the last two generations by the progressives that were so effective in taking over nearly all the entities that compose the federal government, the only one left they’ve not completely infected is the Military and it is now being rapidly assimilated.

[AuH2ORepublican]

I never said that Congress “ratified” (which I consistently used to refer to what the state legislatures do), I said “approved.” You know, the step prior to ratification of something. Yeah, Article V calls it “proposed,” but I find that less descriptive than “approved.”

As for your quixotic search to repeal the 17th Amendment, we will have to agree to disagree. But at least your arguments of directly elected Senators not being true champions for their state is not a non-starter like the idiotic argument that “changing what the Framers adopted is to disrespect them” or whatever it is that Levin claims. The Framers included an Article V precisely because they wanted the American people to be able to amend the Constitution if they deemed it necessary or convenient to do so, so amending the Constitution—even to change the Framers’ original conception of how the federal government should be run—does not constitute a lack of respect for the vision of the Framers (who were the true “Greatest Generation”).

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

So, if we don’t dare repeal the 17th Amendment, then how will our states, which were meant to be mostly sovereign unto themselves, which were meant to have most of the government powers, have an agency in crafting legislation and confirming federal nominees such that they won’t INEVITABLY get stomped on by the federal leviathan, reducing their own powers and our liberties?

After all, under the current method, we have a federal government that is 18 trillion in debt, has a possibly lesbian bureaucrat ready to have us all freeze in the dark to ameliorate “global warming”, an allegedly conservative Chief Justice who upheld Obamacare, leaders in both political parties who hold We The People in utter contempt, and is basically an all-around, money-sucking, incompetent cluster-f*ck with tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations that turn us all into lawbreakers.

I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with the route we’re currently taking, trying to get the most conservative electable people possible into Congress. And, there are other things we can do as well, such as repealing the 16th amendment, abolishing the Federal Reserve, overturning Reynolds v. Sims (which had a destructive effect on state legislatures), making the U.S. House more numerous so that it actually represent We The People, and so on. However, without some solid link between the state and federal governments, the states are, and will always be, screwed, without a real way to fight back and prevent subjugation to Big Fed.

[Jacquerie]

Agree.

Simply put, post-17th, we have a federal constitution yet not a federal government. It makes as much sense to deny the states a seat at the legislative table as it would to shut down the House of Reps. No sense at all.

Reynolds v. Sims, Roe v. Wade, dozens of other outrageous Scotus decisions wouldn't have happened without the 17th.

[BillyBoy]

So, if we don’t dare repeal the 17th Amendment, then how will >> our states, which were meant to be mostly sovereign unto themselves, which were meant to have most of the government powers <<

Excuse me, the states were NEVER meant to have "most" of the government powers. I have five levels of govenrment over me (federal, state, county, township, and village/city) and I fail to see how giving the vast majority of power to the second highest level of government would solve things. I doubt the city of Springfield, which is a five hour drive from me, knows what's best for the people in my town. I'd actually prefer the greatest amount of power to go the people themselves, then to LOCAL government, and so on upwards. The founders provided a BALENCE of powers at the federal, state, AND local levels of government, as well to THE PEOPLE themselves. It was never their "intent" to decide 95% of government powers belong to state govenrments as you and Rick Perry seem to think is the case. There's a reason why the 10th amendment clearly states powers are reserved to the states OR TO THE PEOPLE , despite the fact you'd like to ignore the second part of that clause because it doesn't fit your agenda.

>> have an agency in crafting legislation <<

My state has no trouble sicking their nose into every facet of my life and crafting all kinds of big government legislation, with or without the 17th amendment in effect. There are thousands of overreacting Illinois state laws that regulate everything.

>> confirming federal nominees <<

Yikes, you want STATE governments to confirm FEDERAL nominees? The Dems would have LOVED to have that power when Bush was president, they could have gone around the Republican Congress and killed every conservative nominee out there.

>> such that they won’t INEVITABLY get stomped on by the federal leviathan, reducing their own powers and our liberties? <<

Well, ask my state house speaker how he does it. Google' Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan' and you'll find the argument that he's "powerless" thanks to the 17th amendment to be laughable. He has absolute power in Illinois, is one of the most powerful elected officials in the ENTIRE country (he has served as Speaker since 1983, longer than any other American), and NOBODY in the federal government EVER interferes with him or tells him that he can't do so and so because it violates federal law. Obama is a amateur next to this guy. In fact, Obama wouldn't even BE President today if he hadn't kissed his ring when he was a state senator:

>> we have a federal government that is 18 trillion in debt, has a possibly lesbian bureaucrat ready to have us all freeze in the dark to ameliorate “global warming”, an allegedly conservative Chief Justice who upheld Obamacare, leaders in both political parties who hold We The People in utter contempt, and is basically an all-around, money-sucking, incompetent cluster-f*ck with tens of thousands of pages of rules and regulations that turn us all into lawbreakers. <<

Most state legislatures are as bad or WORSE than the federal government, even in safely "conservative" states like Alaska. Unfortunately you anti-17thers refuse to acknowledge that because it's much more comfortable to live in your fantasy world where they would send a bunch of Thomas Jeffersons to the U.S. Senate if only we gave them absolute power to send whoever they wanted.

>> repealing the 16th amendment <<

As yes, that pesky amendment passed by a 100% state legislature appointed U.S. Senate.

>> the states are, and will always be, screwed, without a real way to fight back and prevent subjugation to Big Fed. <<

Again, google "Mike Madigan", Illinois House Speaker. Hell, even our governor's don't give a hoot about federal laws. In spite of your claims, the framers placed numerous LIMITS on state government powers, and stated this explictly in the constition itself (for example, states are NOT ALLOWED to create their own currency, etc.). One of the things that states are FORBIDDEN to do is engage in foriegn trade relations with other countries, UNLESS they get permission of Congress to do so. My RINO governor flat our ignored this, and embarked on a historic "Illinois-Cuba" trade deal. I don't recall Congress ever APPROVING it. But again, my state has no problem whatsoever engaging in whatever action they want to (ignoring the 2nd amendment, breaking federal immigration laws by declaring various places to be "sancuity cities" for illegals, etc.), and they NEVER suffer repercussions from the feds for doing so.

That is the reality I see every day with my state government. Sorry that the real world doesn't reflect your fantasy world of "powerless" states.

[fieldmarshaldj]

What people, elected by the legislatures, would step up to stop what’s going on now ? I’ve said it every discussion of this issue, the answer is none. They not only would not, but they would see to it that the treasury was looted even moreso than at present. It’s all about the bucks, baby.

[Pelham]

“Doubtless some are. However, I think it fair to say that we are living in an increasingly “Progressive,” and increasingly powerful centralized state.”

You wanted your Lincoln so don’t complain now.

[Kenny Bunk]

You wanted your Lincoln so don’t complain now.

The Confederate Artillery under the brilliant young Pelham aims, shoots, and scores! Another pompous Yankee lies in the dust.

I do apologize, Pel. If I had known then what I think I know now, I might not have voted for Mr. Lincoln. I was always partial to that slave buy-out deal, anyway!

But I am surely not the only one to blame. The rebels ruined the cause of States' Rights forever, damn them. Their inability to pick their own cotton has meant nothing but trouble for the Republic from the beginning.

[Pelham]

..had we known we’d have picked our own cotton...

although it actually started with tobacco, that aromatic weed bequeathed us by the noble Powhatan savages. It’s a lot of work to pick all that tobacco.

[Kenny Bunk]

....tobacco, that aromatic weed

So how is it Constitutional for New York State to tax the aromatic weed from The Old Dominion? Does not that interfere with "Interstate Commerce?"