These last few days I find my mind wandering around the thought that the Founding Fathers never saw this coming. I’m having trouble maintaining my focus because I have read widely about their visions for the government they were designing and the robustness of their plans while encountering similarly broad examples of dysfunction. Was their design somehow deficient or was the implementation by later generations short of the mark? Let’s consider the question together.
The Founders design included provisions that were expected to control power struggles which might occur between the coequal branches of their Constitutional provisions. On February 8th, of 1788, an article appeared in the New York Packet under the title “The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments.” It is not certain whether the author was Alexander Hamilton or James Madison, but the following paragraph should leave us with little doubt about the goals of their design.
“But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Perhaps if we spend a couple of moments with these incredible words we could discover some insights. As I read these words, one of the first things to grab me is found in the first sentence where we find the word “encroachments.” Encroachments would be a description of behaviors that are offensive in character rather than defensive. So, when we examine the behaviors we see today, how would we describe them? We can probably agree that the current Executive is exhibiting behaviors that are consistent with “encroachments”, but we must quickly follow that thought with another that would characterize the behavior of the Senate as capitulation. Returning to the paragraph above from the New York Packet, we don’t find any suggestion of the design’s provisions to counter capitulation by one of the coequal branches.
How can we explain the dysfunction in the face of the clear design provisions and an equally clear failure in the implementation of that design? Let me ask that in a different way. What could explain the Senate’s capitulation in response to the Executive’s encroachment into the Legislative’s business?
As I see it, the answer is relatively clear and it is a question of “faction.” Again, Alexander Hamilton warned us in another of the Federalist Papers. His wisdom appeared in the Independent Journal, on Wednesday, November 21, 1787 under the title “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection”. His opening paragraph starts with:
“A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection.”
What is he referring to when he uses the word “faction?” Fortunately, in the next article, Federalist No. 10, published in the New York Packet just two days later on Friday, November 23, 1787 under the same title, James Madison continues the argument when he writes:
“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” I can’t imagine a modern day grouping that would be more appropriately described as a faction than today’s political parties. And, today’s political parties are incorporated under the provisions of IRS Code 527 so we would be correct if we refer to them as special interest corporations.
We see that the Federalist Papers tell us that the Founding Fathers recognized the potential for dysfunction in the future and took steps to facilitate their Constitutional design with the means of controlling it with what they called “checks and balances.” We see that the Founding Fathers described one of the sources of future dysfunction as emanating from “factions” which we can easily understand to include our modern day political parties. And, the following quote from Federalist No. 10, we read what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they referred to “a firm union”, but a disclaimer is necessary to make sure we all understand “republican” in the quote as the form of the government they designed and referred to as a “republican democracy.” It is not a referral to a “Republican” as a member of the Republican Party.
“In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.” The “firm union” of which they spoke is the totality of our citizenry electing our government officials and commanding them to conduct our government business in a manner that is beneficial to the interests of a majority of our “union.”
In summary, our Founding Fathers did see the potential for dysfunction and insurrection in the future of our republican democracy and they took the steps they thought appropriate to give those future governments the means by which they could fend off those nefarious interests. They also made sure that we would all be given an awareness of our role in controlling and eradicating those same nefarious interests from our midst. “We the people”, are the “firm union” of which they speak and it is up to us to take charge of those we elect and insure that they provide us an American Government and stop trying to impose a Republican or Democrat Government upon us.
The Sausage Grinder is Broken, will you help to fix it?
Comment here or send an email: abrokensausagegrinder@comcast.net
Like us on Facebook: A Broken Sausage Grinder
Follow us on Twitter: Hank Thomas
Watch on YouTube: A Broken Sausage Grinder