Why Democracy
Look what they’ve done to my song Ma ♪♫♪
Thanks, Melanie
Polls show that most Americans believe in democracy; that most Americans believe that America is a democracy. That even those who aren’t sure what democracy is think that they would recognize it if they saw it. That’s close enough; as close as one’s going to get these days. We think we are a democracy, therefore we are. FDR said that our constitution was a work in progress; so our democracy. A democracy, if we can keep it.
We have been warned that our democracy is fragile, that preserving our democracy demands constant vigilance, …; warnings that our democracy has enemies. And, lest we forget, democracy is complex; needs to be taught to be understood.
The American Enterprise Institute and The Heritage Foundation, the ex-Confederate States, Gingrich’s War on America, Mitch McConnell, Gerrymandering, former States of The Confederacy Republicans, The John Roberts’ Court, Tea Party Republicans, The NRA, Dictators around the world, Governors like Georgia’s Kemp, Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, …; democracy has lots of enemies.
The American Enterprise Institute and The Heritage Foundation are quick to remind us that America is a republic; not a democracy. Rich coming from the two of them as they claim themselves to be something called Federalists; that’s the before the Constitution, not in the Constitution, gone since the early 19th century, Federalists; not the long after the Constitution, 1982, organization of right-wing conservatives and libertarians Federalist Society. Or, maybe, … it is that they wish to be associated the both? The two are quite different, you know.
Without democracy, a small minority like the Federalist Society might tyrannize the nation by securing the appointment of right-wing, libertarian judges to the benches of the Federal Courts. They already have. The Federalist Society, shown as having a membership of around 70k, now controls the US Supreme Court by way of having 5 of the Court’s Justices as members or former members by way of a non-representative US Senate led by Mitch McConnell from the small, backward, non-representative state of Kentucky. The Federalist Society isn’t a political party; has never stood for election to anything. We really needn’t bother asking.
After the Civil War, after Reconstruction, around 1877, white supremacists in the deep South lead by former Confederate Officers, forcibly threw duly elected blacks out of office, took away black men’s right to vote, and installed whitely elected officeholders in their stead. For another 88 years, whites in the southern states held their black citizens in economic servitude as share-croppers on the very land where their parents and grandparents had been slaves. If a black share-cropper dared think of voting, they and their family were kicked off the land, out of home. Tossed democracy in the trash bin for another nigh on 90 years, they did. Without democracy, white supremacists tyrannized blacks in the former Confederate States for a hundred years after emancipation; given the chance, still do.
By 1992, Republicans had decided that no Democrat belonged in the White House ever again. After Clinton was reelected to a second term, led by such paragons of virtue as Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr, Tom Delay, Dick Armey, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, Billy Tauzin, … and after four years of Ken Starr investigating everything he could imagine; the Republican-majority House of Representative voted to impeach President William Clinton, a Democrat and a plebeian of low birth. Without democracy, one political party might decide that no person from the opposition party could legitimately be President. Banana Republics are not democracies; thus their appeal to certain types.
In 2008, and for eight years thereafter, Mitch McConnell never forgave the Nation for electing Barack Obama, Democrat to be President; did everything he could to impede the implementation of Obama’s agenda. When Tina asks, “What’s Democracy got to do with it?” Mitch says, “Nothing.” Without democracy, a venal Senator from a small, backward, state might decide that the most important thing that he could do was to block the agenda of a popularly elected President, even when doing so damaged the Nation. A lack of constant vigilance.
In 2011, the Republican Majority North Carolina Legislature gerrymandered the Democratic majority state in a manner so as to ensure continued Republican Control. Seems god doesn’t want democracy in North Carolina. With gerrymandering, without democracy, corrupt politicians representing powerful interest could control the makeup of the State’s legislative and Judicial branches in perpetuity. More enemies.
Immediately following the soon to be infamous 2013 Shelby vs. Holder Supreme Court decision, State Legislatures of former states of the Confederacy like Texas, North Carolina, Alabama and Arizona (Arizona was a Confederate Territory), plus other red states like North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin enacted laws restricting or otherwise making it more difficult for some people to vote. The Decision made it easier for politicians in red states around the nation to suppress or negate the votes of those whom they felt were likely to vote against them. Justices unclear on the concept; needing to be better educated, more Learned.
We read about a Dictator of an African nation who stole everything that wasn’t bolted down, including all the money for the nation’s schools; didn’t even leave any for polio vaccinations. The current political battle in Venezuela is about who gets to steal the last, anything that hasn’t already been stolen, of the country’s wealth. Dictatorships are monopolies on power. Democracies are of the people, by the people.
In April of 2020, Governor Kemp, GA, the states’ former Secretary of State who in 2018 had rigged the upcoming Georgia gubernatorial election in a way meant to assist his own gubernatorial campaign, put business interests ahead of citizen safety during a deadly pandemic. Not unusual given that we often hear Republican politicians publicly declare that Capitalism is more important than Democracy. Democracy is far more important than either Capitalism or Free Marketers. In a democracy, the people, not capital, get to decide by way of free and fair elections. Neither Governor Kemp nor Capitalism are friends of democracy.
Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell do not think that your right to vote is nearly as important as their right to remain in office. Neither of them gives a fig about Democracy. Donald and Mitch should be afraid, be very afraid; in a democracy, no one is above the law.
To all those who claim power as their entitle, those who would seek to monopolize power; democracy is an impediment, a competitor, that they feel they need to destroy.
While it is true that the word democracy is not in the constitution as ratified; a few amendments: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 26 have happened since. These probably represent the American Democracy that they don’t like. Democracy along the lines of: A form of government that is answerable to its citizens, citizens who may change their representatives through free and fair elections. A form of government that ensures all of its citizens the right to vote. A form of government that accords its citizens liberty and equality. A form of government that protects the human rights of its citizens. A form of government wherein all are subject to the rule of law and the law applies equally to all. Most Americans believe in democracy. Most Americans believe that America is a democracy. America’s democracy is known by the friends it keeps.
Democracies are fairly complex in concept; requiring conceptual thinking. Conceptual thinking requires an informed, educated electorate. In a democracy we don’t get our druthers; democracy is all about compromise. Elected representatives solve the problem of how to effect governance in a democracy. Free and fair elections accommodate change; eliminate the need for revolution. Free and fair elections bring forth collective intelligence; if there is such a thing. A democracy is flexible, can adapt to changing times. In order for democracy to work, elected representatives must be held accountable. Democracy is more important than any economic model, more important than the Constitution itself. A democracy could lawfully change the Constitution. In theory, a democracy could decide not to be a democracy; self immolate. This should never be an option, is not even a proper role for the Constitution. Our democracy is a work in progress.
America’s current decline concurrent China’s rise pits democracy against totalitarianism; puts our democracy further at risk. Unless we can right our ship, chances are that we will see more and more Americans willing to exchange what democracy remains for totalitarianism in hopes of better chances for personal prosperity, for making a decent living. Democracy depends on the practice of good democracy and good governance.
Our democracy is under assault from crooked politicians, inept Judges and Justices, Capitalists, and Free Marketers. Greed amongst the citizenry is another enemy of democracy worthy of our vigilance.
As a footnote; democracy can be perverted:
From the 1990s until 2019, the NRA was one of the most powerful political entities in America. Leveraging its never more than 5.5 million membership, for nearly 30 years the NRA could and did, at both state and federal levels, determine most Republican and some Democratic Primary outcomes; thus determining who got to run for and go on to serve in state legislatures, the US Congress. For US Senate seats, this meant that the NRA played a major role in determining who got on the Federal Courts, including the US Supreme Court. As a consequence of this power, bad gun laws were passed by Congress and upheld by the US Supreme Court while good gun laws died aborning or were found to be unconstitutional. A most undemocratic exercise of tyranny by a very small minority.
The Tea Party, an ultra-conservative, libertarian movement within the Republican Party, founded in 2009, funded by David H. Koch, representing Koch and less than 5% of the population; wreaked havoc on national politics for nigh on to 10 years by controlling enough votes to determine primary outcomes and Congressional votes. The Tea Party, as far removed from democracy as possible; was an exercise of tyranny by a minority.
Sometimes minority leverage can abet democracy by according minorities the political power to protect their legitimate interests. The NRA and the Tea Party are instances where such power was used to impose a minority’s will on the majority; to work against democracy. Unfortunately, the Constitution avoids the issue of tyranny by a minority; only concerns itself with tyranny by a majority. As FDR said; a work in progress.
The problem is, we have allowed conservatives and libertarians to set the terms of discussion. AEI argues USA is supposed to be a republic, but terribly misrepresents what a republic is. Conservatives and libertarians are especially loathe to admit that the idea of a republic was developed in order to constrain the dangerous political power of the wealthy in a society. Machiavelli makes this quite clear in Discourses on Livy, but we are (mis)taught that Machiavelli’s great work is the cynical The Prince.
I think we need to revive the idea of what a republic is supposed to be. especially the idea of public virtue: if your interests conflict with the general welfare, then you have a civic duty to yield to the general welfare. This is, I believe, the only proper grounds on which to criticize AND criminalize the flagrant disregard for public health of not wearing masks in a pandemic.
A republic is a system of government in which all citizens have 1) equal right to select their governing representatives, 2) equal access to those representatives, 3) equal standing before the law, and 4) institutional and cultural guarantees of political freedom. A republic is not a democracy, but a republic is ALWAYS democratic in form: all citizens have an equal right and access to the electoral process through which government officials and representatives are selected.
Which means there is a fifth point to a republic: there are supposed to be institutional and cultural barriers and obstacles to mob rule, political passions, demagoguery, and ruling elite intrigues.
For a fuller, but relatively brief description of what a republic is, including some illuminating quotes from the founders, I highly recommend reading pages 176 to 188 of the February 1866 by speech Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner delivered urging passage of the Fourteenth Amendment (https://archive.org/stream/worksofcharlessu10sumniala#page/114/mode/2up) Sumner points out that the Constitution includes a guarantee of a “republican” form of government for each state, and proceeds to show why the slave oligarchy of the South HAD to be destroyed because it endangered this Constitutional guarantee.
Among the many quotes and excerpts proferred by Sumner is this by Madison, from The Federalist No. 39, “The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles“:
“…we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.”
NO favored class ! Not slaveholders, nor bondholders, nor bond traders, nor bankers, nor professional management class, nor rentiers, nor billionaires.
Tony
A decade has almost passed. Perhaps, a small introduction? You appear to have some command of the topic at hand. Interesting too!
Bill
@Tony Wikrent,
“…the idea of a republic was developed in order to constrain the dangerous political power of the wealthy in a society…”
[Well, no. Our constitutional republic was developed to institutionalize the political power of economic elites in our society. Consider the US Senate, the electoral college and the original limitations on suffrage. The US Senate has been modestly improved since senators began to be elected by the people in 1914. Suffrage has expanded considerably. But during those intervening years the elites had plenty time to program public opinion via both media and pedagogy much as the Prussians had done to develop their own military-industrial republic.
Machiavelli’s great work was as a sot and a pedophile, not so heroic in my mind nor anyone that I would seek advice from.]
Then the Industrial Revolution facilitated the procurement of the electorate at market prices.
We are not a democracy. There is no workable model that assumes proportional voting because it is illegal.
The Constitution expressly states this is not a proportional democracy, and requires use of force against those who attempt otherwise.
There is no model that derives from an illusion that I know of, even expectational functions fail.
The US is a Democratic Republic.
@ Ron (RC) Weakley (A.K.A., Darryl For A While At EV) writes: “Our constitutional republic was developed to institutionalize the political power of economic elites in our society.”
This is the standard historical interpretation of the “left.” There is a simple historical test that can, and should, be applied. But the test is not applied, because it shows the standard “left” interpretation is wrong.
The test: compare the late 18th century elites of USA with the late 18th century elites of England and Great Britain. Where today are the fabulously wealthy families of the descendants of Franklin, Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, etc.? There are none, so far as I know. Look then in contrast at the continued wealth, privilege, and rank in Britain of the families of Windsor, Grosvenor, Schroder, Barclay, Cavendish, Somerset, Seymour, and others, all of which go back three centuries or more. Either the attempt to “institutionalize the political power of economic elites” failed miserably, or the interpretation is WRONG.
The failure to apply this test, and acknowledge the meaning of its results, indicates to me that the “left” is as intellectually atrophied and dishonest as is the conservatives and libertarians.
A number of years ago, my interlocutors would try to argue that their argument was proven by Charles Beard. So, I went and read Beard. Not just his 1913 #Economic Interpretation of the Constitution# but also, crucially, his 1915 #Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy# and his 1922 #The economic basis of politics#. Turns out that my interlocutors were wrong, and Beard actually argued, by 1922, that Hamilton and Madison’s analysis of political economy (political factions arise from economic interests) was more accurate and more useful than the political economy of Marx or Lenin.
The dismissal of Machiavelli for alleged flaws of personal characters seems to be a standard attack of people who are more interested in identity politics than in advancing the interests of the working class. This preferred approach, along with the intellectual dishonesty and stultification mentioned above, are, I believe, the major reasons why the “left” has had its ass kicked repeatedly by the conservatives and libertarians the past four decades, allowing the latter two to dominate national economic policy making for far too long.
“Industrial Revolution facilitated the procurement of the electorate at market prices” I’m not entirely sure what your point is here, but I think the real dynamic to look at was the expansion of the franchise to the working class in Europe in the early 1900s, which was the political price the European oligarchs were evidently willing to pay to get the mass conscription required for the slaughters of the 1910s thorough 1940s.
Which also brings up this point: the failure to understand what the creation of the American republic was really all about leaves one vulnerable to disastrous consequences. For example, if a proper understanding of the USA as a republic (as reflected in Sumner’s 1866 speech) still existed in the 1970s and 1980s, then I think there would have been at least a fighting chance to stymie Rupert Murdoch’s entry into USA mass media, on the grounds that as a prominent royal subject, he was hostile to republicanism. I think similar grounds will be needed to begin to effectively attack and turn back the Kochs, the NRA, the Tea Party, the Federalist Society, etc.
@Tony Wikrent,
Well then you get high marks for your knowledge of history and your use of semantics and your rationalizations in defense of the status quo. I will go so far as to give you that we have a dollar representative republic or even a dollar democracy rather than a hereditary aristocracy.
There are three general classes of elites; economic or wealthy, political or technocratic, and intellectual or academic Systemically, all power flows from wealth since politicians need the wealthy for campaign finance and media access while academics need wealthy patrons to fatten their stipends and bonuses and fund their research. The Rockefeller family appears to have been better at preserving the inter-generational succession of wealth and power. Presently capitalism is attempting to work out which will happen first, the euthanasia of the rentier or the euthanasia of the laborer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad
In psychology, the dark triad comprises the personality traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy.[1][2][3][4] They are called “dark” because of their malevolent qualities.[5][1][6][7]
Research on the dark triad is used in applied psychology, especially within the fields of law enforcement, clinical psychology, and business management. People scoring high on these traits are more likely to commit crimes, cause social distress and create severe problems for an organization, especially if they are in leadership positions (for more information, see psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism in the workplace). They also tend to be less compassionate, agreeable, empathetic, satisfied with their lives, and less likely to believe they and others are good.[8]
All three dark triad traits are conceptually distinct although empirical evidence shows them to be overlapping. They are associated with a callous-manipulative interpersonal style.[9]
Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and a lack of empathy.[10]
Machiavellianism is characterized by manipulation and exploitation of others, an absence of morality, unemotional callousness, and a higher level of self interest.[11]
Psychopathy is characterized by continuous antisocial behavior, impulsivity, selfishness, callous and unemotional traits (CU),[12] and remorselessness.[13]
[This is a growing area of analytical psychology research that gradually seems to be coalescing on the possibility that to a large degree the three character profiles may be distinctions without an overwhelming difference, not the same but in the sphere of a spectrum disorder similar to the flavors of autism. It might be worth mentioning that the characteristics of Machiavellianism are not just drawn from “The Prince,” but rather more importantly from the real life behavior of Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli.]
@Ron (RC) Weakley (A.K.A., Darryl For A While At EV)
August 28, 2020 8:15 am
I object to this inspired by Putin and RT vicious attack on Senator Schumer 😉
What you do not understand is that Democracy is a tool and as any tool it has drawbacks and limits of applicability. It is just one of the tools that can help create more livable more fair society during some historical periods. It does not have any absolute value. If does not have any place in the society what it is experiencing stress, or rapid change.
Similarly Republic was also a tool and at the time of US war of independence it was directed against the concept of monarchy. In 18 and 19 centuries any social order that prevent hijacking political power by a single person for life, and passing it to his.her descendants was a republic.
BTW the USSR one party system was a republican form of government and kind of theocratic “Party democracy” democracy (only one strata of population “true believers in Communist doctrine” or pretending it and organized into a party had the right to select a leader) although mechanism or preventing the person of monopolizing power were soon broken.
Lenin once made an interesting statement that sounds something like “illiterate man stands outside politics”. Which suggest that considerable part of the society will always be manipulated by oligarchy or other organized minority, and for them democracy is always just a sham, a powerful illusion.
In this sense blanket statements like ” Presently capitalism is attempting to work out which will happen first, the euthanasia of the rentier or the euthanasia of the laborer.} are wrong and even stupid in view of the iron law of oligarchy,
There are always social forces directed at the lowing the standard living of labor and labor resistance to those attempts.
@Tony,
“… the idea of a republic was developed in order to constrain the dangerous political power of the wealthy in a society. Machiavelli makes this quite clear in Discourses on Livy, but we are (mis)taught that Machiavelli’s great work is the cynical The Prince. …”
[Similar defenses are made for Adam Smith.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
Adam Smith FRSA (c. 16 June [O.S. c. 5 June] 1723[1] – 17 July 1790) was a Scottish[a] economist, philosopher, and author as well as a moral philosopher, a pioneer of political economy, and a key figure during the Scottish Enlightenment,[6] also known as ”The Father of Economics”[7] or ”The Father of Capitalism”.[8] Smith wrote two classic works, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The latter, often abbreviated as The Wealth of Nations, is considered his magnum opus and the first modern work of economics. In his work, Adam Smith introduced his theory of absolute advantage.[9] …
*
[It is hard to say what moral sentiments that Smith might have had over the offshoring of labor to third world countries just as means of price arbitrage for regulations and labor. At the time of Wealth of Nations though, Smith was arguing in effect that the colonies should continue to depend upon the maturity of English manufacturing even if they gained their independence rather than developing their own industrial infrastructure. Hamilton and Adams were not buying it though.]
When defending Democracy in America, then most people go to Alexis de Tocqueville, the guy that wrote the book, so to speak. I am not buying it though, probably because of my Cherokee granny.
It was just, just the trail of tears that is.
Separation of powers, when effectively performed, is a better protection against tyranny than disproportionate representation by privately financed political parties. The US is the wealthiest nation on Earth, which should make things easier, but seems to do the opposite. There is a lot of wealth and power to fight over.
Heroes are hard to find, so I don’t look for any. The work of the future is just ahead.
@Likbez,
My stupid statement “Presently capitalism is attempting to work out which will happen first, the euthanasia of the rentier or the euthanasia of the laborer” was a feeble attempt at a joke of juxtaposition posited upon Keyne’s General Theory Chapter 24 in light of the present circumstances surrounding offshoring purely for price arbitrage to lower standards of living as comparative advantage with the only foreseeable rescue in the hands of AI robots.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch24.htm
“…II
There is, however, a second, much more fundamental inference from our argument which has a bearing on the future of inequalities of wealth; namely, our theory of the rate of interest. The justification for a moderately high rate of interest has been found hitherto in the necessity of providing a sufficient inducement to save. But we have shown that the extent of effective saving is necessarily determined by the scale of investment and that the scale of investment is promoted by a low rate of interest, provided that we do not attempt to stimulate it in this way beyond the point which corresponds to full employment. Thus it is to our best advantage to reduce the rate of interest to that point relatively to the schedule of the marginal efficiency of capital at which there is full employment.
There can be no doubt that this criterion will lead to a much lower rate of interest than has ruled hitherto; and, so far as one can guess at the schedules of the marginal efficiency of capital corresponding to increasing amounts of capital, the rate of interest is likely to fall steadily, if it should be practicable to maintain conditions of more or less continuous full employment unless, indeed, there is an excessive change in the aggregate propensity to consume (including the State).
I feel sure that the demand for capital is strictly limited in the sense that it would not be difficult to increase the stock of capital up to a point where its marginal efficiency had fallen to a very low figure. This would not mean that the use of capital instruments would cost almost nothing, but only that the return from them would have to cover little more than their exhaustion by wastage and obsolescence together with some margin to cover risk and the exercise of skill and judgment. In short, the aggregate return from durable goods in the course of their life would, as in the case of short-lived goods, just cover their labour costs of production plus an allowance for risk and the costs of skill and supervision.
Now, though this state of affairs would be quite compatible with some measure of individualism, yet it would mean the euthanasia of the rentier, and, consequently, the euthanasia of the cumulative oppressive power of the capitalist to exploit the scarcity-value of capital. Interest today rewards no genuine sacrifice, any more than does the rent of land. The owner of capital can obtain interest because capital is scarce, just as the owner of land can obtain rent because land is scarce. But whilst there may be intrinsic reasons for the scarcity of land, there are no intrinsic reasons for the scarcity of capital. An intrinsic reason for such scarcity, in the sense of a genuine sacrifice which could only be called forth by the offer of a reward in the shape of interest, would not exist, in the long run, except in the event of the individual propensity to consume proving to be of such a character that net saving in conditions of full employment comes to an end before capital has become sufficiently abundant. But even so, it will still be possible for communal saving through the agency of the State to be maintained at a level which will allow the growth of capital up to the point where it ceases to be scarce.
I see, therefore, the rentier aspect of capitalism as a transitional phase which will disappear when it has done its work. And with the disappearance of its rentier aspect much else in it besides will suffer a sea-change. It will be, moreover, a great advantage of the order of events which I am advocating, that the euthanasia of the rentier, of the functionless investor, will be nothing sudden, merely a gradual but prolonged continuance of what we have seen recently in Great Britain, and will need no revolution.
Thus we might aim in practice (there being nothing in this which is unattainable) at an increase in the volume of capital until it ceases to be scarce, so that the functionless investor will no longer receive a bonus; and at a scheme of direct taxation which allows the intelligence and determination and executive skill of the financier, the entrepreneur et hoc genus omne (who are certainly so fond of their craft that their labour could be obtained much cheaper than at present), to be harnessed to the service of the community on reasonable terms of reward…”
When a joke requires explanation then that is the sound of one hand laughing at a tree that falls in the woods.
I will be paying for my sins soon enough after wife’s lunch is made. I got four hours this PM working on a concrete deck within a privacy fence @ a heat index pushing 100F. The good news is that most of that work is with a water hose washing stuff. I’m no dummy, not absolute dummy anyway.
@@@Ron (RC) Weakley
I am not rationalizing nor defending the status quo. I am asserting there are a number of questions that should asked, and the fact that the “left” is not interested indicates the “left” is failing. How was the revolutionary idea of republicanism displaced by capitalism? Accepting the argument that USA “was developed to institutionalize the political power of economic elites” glosses over the very real fights over what USA was to become. You claim Cherokee heritage; hopefully you know that the policy of removal was termed a heinous crime by many leading Whigs at the time. John Quincy Adams wrote in his journal that he considered it a death knell of the republic. My point is: why did Adams and the Whigs lose, and why did Jackson and Calhoun win? Ought the whole fight be dismissed because the ending was preordained by the supposed institutionalization of white elites’ power?
You write that Rockefeller seems to have better preserved family wealth and stature than did the founders I cite in my test. Why is that? What changed in USA that allowed fortunes in the later 1800s to become the basis of preserved oligarchical power? What changed in USA that allowed oligarchy to displace the republic? Was it the arrival of Morgan as a representative of London finance? Was it the crushing of the populist movement and the triumph of Mark Hanna in the 1896 election? To dismiss the revolutionary implication of the founding of USA is to dismiss the agency of the people – both those who, like Adams and Lincoln, stood for the ideal of America, but eventually lost, and those like Calhoun, Coolidge, and Hoover, who eventually won.
And if you dismiss Machiavelli, do you not also dismiss the Atlantic republican ideology identified by scholars such as J.G.A. Pocock, Bernard Bailyn, Arthur Schlesinger, Gordon Wood, and others? They have concluded that the ideas of Machiavelli were fundamental to the English country party of James Harrington, which was the much greater influence on the American revolutionaries, not John Locke and Locke’s slavish devotion to property rights. I think it is symptomatic that you adulate Adam Smith, another British imperial apologist, who was thoroughly debunked by Hamilton in his reports to Congress as Secretary of the Treasury. So, another question: how did we get to the point today that Hamilton is dismissed as an elitist, while Smith is celebrated as the founder of modern economics? Never mind that the empire Smith worked for slaughtered and starved millions all around the world. Is it just coincidence that USA begins to emulate the British empire, and conduct its own slaughters, when the ideas of Locke and Smith gain ascendance over those of Hamilton and Adams?
@Tony,
To do your protests justice will take more time than I have today. I will get back to it tomorrow if we still have power after Laura arrives. I just came back in for a few to grab some water and cool down.
For now though I am puzzled how you got that I “adulate Adam Smith?” This is one of things that I have come to respect Hamilton for. To be clear though there is next to nothing that I have for you with regards to scholars of political ideology other than I dismiss all of them. Institutions and people make governments while ideology tries in vain to explain their successes and failures. Sometimes there is evolution and sometimes there is revolution, but in either case the starting situation has bearing. The future does not lie in some secret place hidden in the past. History does not repeat itself although it often rhymes. It is still true that none can rule without consent of the governed, but there is nothing stopping strong men from taking that consent with brutal threats and intimidation instead of having that consent freely given. Actually there still plenty of extorted consent even in modern republics, but nothing to keep any good technocrat awake at night. Not everyone loves the state as much as the elites than run it.
What republican experience did Machiavelli have? I thought he was just the henchman of a couple princes.
Also, Left is an extremely imprecise description of ideology and of course the same might be said about Right.
It’s not like I don’t respect any intellectuals, just not many. My short list off the top of my head includes Carl Sagan, Sagan’s protege Neil de Grasse Tyson, Frederick Perls, and Desmond Morris. When it comes to political ideology or philosophy, then I cannot think of a soul that I have found to be truthful without reservation. However, I do find some more disgusting than others and Nietzsche and Machiavelli top that list. Immanuel Kant and William James disgust me less than most.
Ron:
If you are down there and in the way, be safe and take the necessary precautions to maintain yourself and family. Been reading right along and wondering what the objective is from this influx. What did you say to light the fuse?
Lit the fuse seems right.
Dan:
I do have an opinion
Last evening, watched Professors Heather Cox Richardson, Boston College and Joanne B. Freeman, Yale discussing a recent book by Richardson and … the constitution. How the South Won the Civil War
As often in this type of discussion, the conversation repeatedly turned to what this or that word meant at the time the constitution was written. The underlying question is, I think, how do we go forth with a Constitution that is now 240+ years old and getting older by the day in this the 21st century? Not only have the meanings of the words changed, the world has changed, and hopefully will continue to do so. Jefferson is quoted as saying at the time that he thought that the instrument should be subject to review; perhaps every 20 yrs. Often, Jefferson was on one side of many of those arguments now presented as representative of the original meaning; it’s usually the opposing side of these arguments that is presented as representative of the original meaning. That search for original meaning should scare the hell out of all of us. We must ride forever neath the streets of Boston.
In Shelby vs Holder, Chief Justice Roberts, in writing the majority, invoked … the constitutional principles of federalism … B.S. Justice Roberts; this is simply having the Constitution say what you want it to say; mean what you want it to mean. Sorry Justice, your name will not be on the Constitutional review commission.
In a time when one side of Congress is populated by progeny of Newt Gingrich, Grover Norquist, Frank Luntz, …, and avowed disciples of the now at god’s side Jerry Falwell; Congress isn’t up to the task. It may be that this is just not the time to figure out how to deal with this issue, but the time is coming, coming fast. Can we get back to the concept of the Constitution as a living instrument, …?
During the late 1930s, the Supreme Court had to put on a new set of glasses, glasses prescribed for the times, for the now of then. How can it be different?
The founding fathers, really smart bunch, drew deeply from the wisdom of the past in order to address the now of forming a New Nation. This drawing from the past will always be essential to going forth, but we can not go forth very far with one foot planted in the past. Somehow the constitution must always be relevant the times.
Ken:
Perhaps this may help?
In Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell, in 1934, the Court declared:
Amending the Constitution This is written by a family acquaintance/friend who helped us when we needed help. I will not mention his name here. He writes on the topic you are suggesting needs to be done. We seem to be bogged down by a few. I think you will find it interesting and not a terribly, long read.
@Tony,
[In your initial post where you introduced “the idea of a republic was developed in order to constrain the dangerous political power of the wealthy in a society” you make the case, the justification, free of any reference to why organizing the colonies altogether into a nation was so important to the founders. It was so important to them that they worked hard at it, went to great lengths to develop a constitutional republic with a more powerful central government than that loose federation established by the Articles of Confederation.
Slavery had never been that popular in the North for religious and moral reasons for sure, but also because the colder winters of the North were not suitable to housing large ranks of blacks in flimsy barracks any more than the principle cash crops of the day, cotton and tobacco, were suitable to the shorter northern growing seasons. Yet the northern delegates to the constitutional convention were willing to compromise on slavery in order to get the job done. Why? What were the objectives for which the Founders were dedicated to building a strong central government? How about commerce, taxes, and war? I will through in an excerpt from an article on the US Constitution so you do not just have to take my word for it.]
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/more-perfect-union#toc-the-delegates-2
“… The Articles of Confederation
The determined Madison had for several years insatiably studied history and political theory searching for a solution to the political and economic dilemmas he saw plaguing America. The Virginian’s labors convinced him of the futility and weakness of confederacies of independent states. America’s own government under the Articles of Confederation, Madison was convinced, had to be replaced. In force since 1781, established as a “league of friendship” and a constitution for the 13 sovereign and independent states after the Revolution, the articles seemed to Madison woefully inadequate. With the states retaining considerable power, the central government, he believed, had insufficient power to regulate commerce. It could not tax and was generally impotent in setting commercial policy it could not effectively support a war effort. It had little power to settle quarrels between states. Saddled with this weak government, the states were on the brink of economic disaster. The evidence was overwhelming. Congress was attempting to function with a depleted treasury; paper money was flooding the country, creating extraordinary inflation–a pound of tea in some areas could be purchased for a tidy $100; and the depressed condition of business was taking its toll on many small farmers. Some of them were being thrown in jail for debt, and numerous farms were being confiscated and sold for taxes…”
@Tony,
All that liberty, justice, freedom, and democracy stuff reads good on the sales brochures, but elites have never trusted the lower classes with real political power. But taxes, commerce, and war are the real deal. Commerce makes people rich. War keeps people safe from their enemies and allows the confiscation of the property of others. Taxes make it all possible. Tariffs were at least a twofer. Hobbling the competition of imports with tariffs was good for domestic production while it collected the financing for that navy needed to enforce tariff laws.
So who were those enemies? Well, any European nation with a large army and navy first, and then all those little native American nations that we were out to rob second, third, and so on.
Run,
“If you are down there and in the way, be safe and take the necessary precautions to maintain yourself and family. Been reading right along and wondering what the objective is from this influx. What did you say to light the fuse?”
[No worries, Mate, except for the risk of losing power during six hours of successive thunderstorms this afternoon. Otherwise, all the severe has gone out of Laura. Crossing the Appalachians will do it.
I have a bad habit of slaughtering sacred cows, in this case Machiavelli and republicanism. Mach was what I said he was earlier.
Republicanism is barely a thing, or even a general framework. It is no more than an abstract concept, but we do not live in abstractions. Sure realistically, compromises had to be made to glue them together, but the idea that the world was better for that generally ignores the stuff we did that caused us to have to come to the rescue later. If history were changed then that change would not be so conveniently isolated as such narratives go. In any case, with present communications technology then a far more democratic constitutional republic is at least technically possible if not politically.
Republicanism is merely something to fill the space between aristocracy and true democracy and it can be implemented in a vast number of different ways. True democracy requires more than just universal suffrage, but rather universal knowledge and engagement, so it is still a far reach from where we are now.
I read you and Ken on updating our constitution, something that was made difficult but not impossible in the original, but now with our extreme political polarization bordering on impossible. With a lot of luck the excesses of Trump and his gang may have opened the door though.]
Ron:
The author made mention of the issue:
“the degree to which the Constitution was based on trust in those who would be governing to work out these matters and the knowledge that there was an amendment process to solve the problems that might develop. The conventional wisdom about the Constitution emphasizes the Framers’ distrust in government, as reflected in their desire for separation of powers, federalism, and ultimately a bill of rights. This account is undoubtedly accurate, but equally important is the extent to which the Constitution reflects a profound trust in those who would be governing under it.”
We are at an instance where we can not trust the ones who lead us as they have betrayed the governance in which we granted them. I wonder what the framers would think of our government of today. A Senate manipulated by one man. A president who governs like a king?
The author also argues about proportionality of the House. I would like to see smaller congressional district than the average 700,000 now on the order of the population of Wyoming and upwards from such.50,000 is too small and maybe 450,000 is manageable. Too big and we give way to gerrymandering. To small and the House becomes impossible. What our framers think?
Just thoughts. I am a practical person and I fix things. Not much philosophy. I work with my hands and understand numbers.
I am happy in your safety.
@Tony,
“@ Ron (RC) Weakley (A.K.A., Darryl For A While At EV) writes: “Our constitutional republic was developed to institutionalize the political power of economic elites in our society.”
This is the standard historical interpretation of the “left.” There is a simple historical test that can, and should, be applied. But the test is not applied, because it shows the standard “left” interpretation is wrong.
The test: compare the late 18th century elites of USA with the late 18th century elites of England and Great Britain. ..”
[What you appear to be testing is not the premise that you are refuting. Your test is valid only for the political economy conditions of hangover effect from the former state of affairs, property owners versus aristocracy, as republicanism advanced. Our revolution was against British rule rather than ourselves, such that in both cases the political economy has simply evolved from its starting situations. We share a common evolution of republicanism from the formation of British common law under the Magna Carta Libertatum until separated by colonialism, which increasingly stimulated the turn away from aristocracy towards a government representing economic interests foremost with tokens to more ordinary freemen to cement the consent of the governed.]
@Tony,
“…How was the revolutionary idea of republicanism displaced by capitalism?…”
[It was not replaced, nor could any political system be replaced by an economic system. That is why Democratic Socialism is possible or autocratic capitalism or Fascism. They are two different things that are generally compatible in several different combinations. However, that does still leave the question as to whether the economic system owns the political system. which is generally the case with republicanism particularly under control of privately financed political parties, or that political system “owns” the economic system, which is generally the case with autocratic systems.]
@Tony,
[This is getting past old now. John D Rockefeller was the epitome of the elite class that the Federalists hoped to preserve, while the landed gentry screwed themselves into a Civil War. Rather than all those other names of political philosophers that you dropped above then I will leave you with a brief reference and link to one that you did not mention, not loved by me but at least understood in his relevance to our current situation where business interests are considered the rightful rulers of the Universe. Again, I agreed with Hamilton on Adam Smith and hold no more reverence for Smith than Mach. Forget Locke except for the occasional bumper sticker.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes
Thomas Hobbes (/hɒbz/; sometimes known as Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury;[4] 5 April 1588 – 4 December 1679), was an English philosopher, considered to be one of the founders of modern political philosophy.[5][6] Hobbes is best known for his 1651 book Leviathan, in which he expounds an influential formulation of social contract theory.[7] In addition to political philosophy, Hobbes contributed to a diverse array of other fields, including history, jurisprudence, geometry, the physics of gases, theology, and ethics, as well as philosophy in general. ..
The trick in politics is to govern without being slaughtered by the governed.
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
” A thirty-three-year-old Irish-born carpen-
ter, a private in the 28th Massachusetts of the famous Irish
Brigade, angrily rebuked both his wife in Boston and his fa-
ther-in-law back in Ireland for questioning his judgment in
fighting for the Black Republican Lincoln administration.
“This is my country as much as the man who was born on
the soil,” he wrote in 1863. “I have as much interest in the
maintenance of … the integrity of the nation as any other
man. . . . This is the first test of a modern free government in
the act of sustaining itself against internal enemys … if it fail
then the hopes of milions fall and the designs and wishes of
all tyrants will succeed the old cry will be sent forth from the
aristocrats of europe that such is the common lot of all
republics. . . . Irishmen and their decendents have … a stake
in [this] nation. . . . America is Irlands refuge Irlands last hope
destroy this republic and her hopes are blasted.”
” In 1864 a forty-year-old Ohio
corporal who had been born in England wrote to his wife
after he had reenlisted for a second three-year hitch: “If I do
get hurt I want you to remember that it will be not only for
my Country and my Children but for Liberty all over the
World that I risked my life, for if Liberty should be crushed
here, what hope would there be for the cause of Human Prog-
ress anywhere else?”
” After Lee’s surrender at Ap-
pomattox, a fifty-one-year-old New Jersey colonel who had
fought the entire four years wrote to his wife that “we [can]
return to our homes with the proud satisfaction that it has
been our privilege to live and take part in the struggle that
has decided for all time to come that Republics are not a
failure.”
from What They Fought For 1861-1865, by James M. McPherson
Ron (RC) Weakley, August 2020″
“Republicanism is barely a thing, or even a general framework. It is no more than an abstract concept, but we do not live in abstractions…
Republicanism is merely something to fill the space between aristocracy and true democracy and it can be implemented in a vast number of different ways.”
For someone virtue signaling such great concern for the democratic expression of the people, you sure do have a very questionable view of what they think.
@Tony,
I have a very questionable view on a lot of things. I can live with that. Reality is questionable, a matter of perspectives taken either from experiences or inherited references..
November 3rd should bring some relief. We the people will not be less stupid after 11/3/2020, but we will have less to be stupid about. Like any perception of reality then “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” begs the question “Relative to what?” They were still thinking about a German king on the British throne perhaps.
“I have a very questionable view on a lot of things. I can live with that. Reality is questionable, a matter of perspectives taken either from experiences or inherited references.”
This is the insouciance of the professional management class that created the political opening for Trump and reactionary populism.
(In “Listen Liberal” Thomas Frank detailed how the PMC seized control of the Democratic Party and destroyed it as an instrument for advancing the interests of working people. )
Ok Tony:
Which management class? The 115,000 or so making an average $6 million in after tax income or are you talking management at before tax $120,000. I wish I had that much influence but hell, I do not. You know, Covid is going to do what politicians refuse to do because they are in league with the 115,000 or 1 tenth of 1% who do make decisions as to where production will be sourced. Those 5 weeks on the ocean and in customs and on docks is coming back to haunt them. The cost saved from avoiding Overhead from Labor or Operations in the US has suddenly gotten smaller when one takes into account risk.
Apple just said they are going to source MacBooks in China because they can not find a supplier who can provide thousands of tiny screws which can be opened with a #1 Philips. Interesting. So rather than go to the present supplier and investing in them to increase capacity, they will renege on their promise to manufacture this product in the US. Buffet move Hathaway product to Asia because he did not want to invest in capital to become m ore efficient because the costs were more and the return mediocre. He kept the name and not the business. Ever been around Williamstown and North Adams when Sprague was sold? I was there interviewing when Sprague being sold was announced. Great interview, we clicked, and fortunately they told me then and apologized.
I was not the decision-maker outside of the $200 million warehouse I used to manage. It was my 100,000 square foot building but even then, I had to get approvals. Could Dems have stopped the flow of Labor going overseas? Probably not, unless they wish to collect an entry fee for product moved overseas and sold again in the US to cover the lost Overhead which paid for customary Labor benefits?
Tom Frank talks about Millennials and the huge student loan debt they carry. Many of them are not paying for it. In his words; “It makes me so angry what we’ve done to them as a society. It really gives the lie to Democratic Party platitudes about the world an education will open up for you.” Ok, he is angry so what. The same as you complain about Democrats. Has Mr. Franks talked to Millennials about their student loan debt? Has he talked with Alan Collinge who heads up the Student Loan Justice Organization? I know Alan can use the help besides the occasional article I write for him and an extra $25 I may donate to his organization. It is great to be mad; but, what the hell are you going to do about it? Since you read Thomas Frank’s article, the student loan debt issue is one you can take up. I will even post it here for you and get it on other blogs too.
No neoliberalism in your dialogue, how come?
Democracy aggregates the self-interests of the majority as expressed in voting, without tempering that self-interest with the consideration of the public interest demanded by republicanism. At the most basic level of moral philosophy, the triumph of capitalism required that the concept of democracy displace the concept of republicanism.
Republicanism expects and demands that society create more than just legal codifications of norms and practices (i.e., a written constitution), but also unwritten norms and practices – traditions – that channel considerations of self-interest in such a way that they are always subject to being measured against the public interest, the general welfare.
(This is why Hamilton argued that Britain had the best constitution. It was not that Hamilton was a monarchist, as disingenuously charged by the slaveholders led by Jefferson and Madison, but that Hamilton recognized that while Britain in fact had NO written constitution, the British had developed over the centuries a set of behavioral norms and expectations that had effectively governed political activity. Indeed, the Revolutionaries had argued that they revolted exactly because King George and his ministers, corrupted by the Board of Trade, had transgressed the unwritten British constitution in their dealings with the North American colonies.)
In the 1968 Pulitzer Prize-winning book of history, “The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution,” Bernard Bailyn writes:
“….the colonists at the beginning of the Revolutionary controversy understood by the word “constitution” not, as we would have it, a written document or even an unwritten but deliberately contrived design of government and a specification of rights beyond the power of ordinary legislation to alter; they thought of it, rather as the constituted — that is, existing — arrangement of governmental institutions, laws, and customs together with the principles and goals that animated them. So John Adams wrote that a political constitution is like “the constitution of the human body” — “certain contextures of the nerves, fibres, and muscles, or certain qualities of the blood and juices… without which life itself cannot be preserved a moment.” A constitution of government, analogously, Adams wrote, is “a frame, a scheme, a system, a combination of powers for a certain end, namely, — the good of the whole community.” ” [pp. 68-69]
It is exactly this unwritten constitutional structure of USA politics and governance that Trump, McConnell, and the Republicans have destroyed and are destroying.
What should be a crucial consideration then, is that axiologically, republicanism is more amenable than democracy to a socialistic economic structure.
Tony’s Blog
https://real-economics.blogspot.com/
ken:
Already been. I was nosey.
@Run,
It’s been a busy month for me until today, holiday finally over and rain has set in for the next six days. Having gotten future service appointments booked out in the last week of Oct and 1st week of Nov, when wife goes to sister’s time share in Duck NC (my vacation or hers?) and ready to start my 3rd load of laundry today, then I have some time to review the damage that I started at AB.
Your words –
“…I wonder what the framers would think of our government of today…”
Hard to say about that. They had a much different set of priorities than we do now. Today the USA is the world’s apex superpower. We take that for granted every day except for when we wring our hands about the inhumanity of it all. The framers were precisely concerned with the vulnerability of their infant republic and were willing to make any compromise to form a union of the separate independent colonies that would insure their safety from European incursion. Sure there were moral objections to slavery, but not so many to segregation or even deportation of former slaves. It is never a very wise idea to superimpose contemporary moral sentiments on those that preceded us by over two centuries.