Forum Posting

In response to our current poll, hercules mulligan writes:

Hmmm. Interesting poll. I think that Hamiltonian Federalism has contributed toward our Constitutional ideals more than Jeffersonian Republicanism, however, our nation has drifted away from the original intent of our Constitution by ideals presented by Jeffersonian Republicanism (i.e., that our Revolution and the French Revolution were commenced for the same reasons, that America is a democracy, and not necessarily a govt of law; and that the state govts have the right to disobey the federal govt any time they see fit).

Hamiltonian Federalism was not opposed to the people having a say in their govt., nor was it opposed to the states being sovereign in their own affairs. America, in its present state, commemorates Jefferson rightly, because it was he that convinced us that we are a democracy. Maybe he never envisioned the end result, but Hamilton did, and knew that it is tyranny, and we are heading toward that road today.

If we had heeded the warnings given to us by Hamilton and Washington (i.e., don't get involved in foreign politics, defend yourselves against the onslaughts of atheism, beware of the philosophy of human perfectibility (outside of Christ), try to avoid civil war and secession from the Union, preserve the sanctity of the Constitution even when it is unpopular, etc.) than perhaps the Constitution might have seen a more prolonged genuine rule.

Forum Posting

In response to Poll Results, hercules mulligan writes:

I enjoyed participating in your poll (I voted for George). I think that you are right in estimating that it was Washington who was the most responsible of the Founders for the successful start of our American Republic. I believe that Hamilton was probably the second-most valuable Founder (or at least that he left the second-most valuable political heritage for us Americans to inherit). But even with all his genius, America would not have placed confidence in any other than a man of universally known and acknowledged character and judgment. Washington never went to college, never earned a Ph.D., but because of his character, America has the legacy that it has.

Sigh, how such short memories we have (what idiots would call Bill Clinton a good desk clerk, much less, the fourth-best President?!?!?). Here is Washington himself upon this general subject:
"If the blessings of Heaven showered thick around us should be spilled on the ground or converted to curses, through the fault of those for whom they were intended, it would not be the first instance of folly or perverseness in short-sighted mortals. The blessed Religion revealed in the word of God will remain an eternal and awful monument to prove that the best Institutions may be abused by human depravity; and that they may even, in some instances be made subservient to the vilest of purposes. Should, hereafter, those who are intrusted [sic] with the management of this government, incited by the lust of power and prompted by the Supineness or venality of their Constituents, overleap the known barriers of this Constitution and violate the unalienable rights of humanity: it will only serve to shew, that no compact among men (however provident in its construction and sacred in its ratification) can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchmt. can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other." intended First Inaugural Address

Snake Hunters adds:

If only the history of our first five presidents were mandatory study for high school graduates, we would have an improved, aware culture, ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century.Lacking that basic, our two-page summary of the past eighty years by Raymond Kraft, attempts to partially fill the tragic empty void between the ears of the baby-boomers, and their kids! reb

See 'History' Post, July 4, 2006 http://www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com/

Our Founding Truth:

Thanks for the poll, I voted for Hamilton, everyone is voting for Washington on my poll, but I think Hamilton was more active in the development of the nation, not militarily, but economically and otherwise. It was his ideas which is the basis of our financial empire, not Washington's.

Hamilton had more adversity to overcome than Washington, if he would have been a better politician, the Federalists would not have lost the Presidency. If he could have united the Federalists, rather than split them up, Adams would have beaten Jefferson in 1800, even with Hamilton's death, the Federalists would still have been the most powerful party. But Hamilton had enemies, and helped divide the party. With the financial achievements of the Federalists, maybe Jay, or King could have won the Presidency.

Poll Results

The forum's recent poll has now closed. Though participation was not as high as hoped for, the results were as follows: in response to the question, "Which founder was most vital to the success of the early American republic?," 66% voted for George Washington, while the remaining 33% went to Alexander Hamilton. I must agree that Washington is among individuals most to be credited for his contributions to the nation. He was a true patriot, a stalwart soldier, and a man with a sense of civic conscience which, even in his own day, was a shining example, and which today can scarce be found. It is even doubtful that the newly formed U.S. government under the Constitution would have weathered its first few years of implementation had it not been captained by an individual who possessed so fully the confidence of the nation.

Amazingly, in a nation-wide poll conducted this past spring, Washington did not make it into a list of the top five greatest presidents as ranked by popular opinion (though Bill Clinton came in fourth place). What pitifully short memories we have. From the author of this post, here's to George Washington, the greatest president our great nation has yet been privileged to produce.

Forum Posting

In response to The Necessary Spring, Our Founding Truth wrote:

I got railed the first time I used this quote by Madison. Barton says it's unconfirmed, secular progressives like to attack whoever uses it.

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," went further. Madison declared,"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God."

His Memorial and Remonstrance is enough ammo to quell the theistic rationalist label Jon Rowe and other secularists wish to impose upon him. In it, Madison says Christianity is true, the other religions are false, and more importantly, confirms the Lord's use of miracles in the early church.
I'm perturbed why Madison turned on Hamilton, and befriended a man universally known to denounce the Deity of Jesus Christ. I tend to believe Madison was greatly influenced by Jefferson, but did he deny the essentials of the faith, I doubt it.

Rob Scot:

There is no doubt that Madison was influenced by Jefferson. It is interesting to note the extent to which Madison admired Jefferson, to the end that he eventually found himself squaring off politically with his former Federalist co-author. In fact, it was the Madison/Jefferson tandem that, for all intents and purposes, founded the Republican movement in the 1790s. Madison's political transformation during the first decade of the Republic is a topic of which I am aware, though I have not studied it in depth; I would be interested in any suggested book or research on this issue.

In any event, I agree that Madison's religious faith was probably not deeply affected by Jefferson, if at all. This demonstrates a key aspect of the democratic system: one need not be in agreement with the personal beliefs of a colleague in order work productively with them, indeed to accomplish incredible things. This is not hypocrisy, but democracy. It is, however, rather a fine line.

hercules mulligan:

I am not as thoroughly acquainted with the subject of the Madison/Jefferson relationship as I am with other subjects relating to the Founders, however, I do know this:

It is true (as it is interesting) that Madison was greatly influenced by Jefferson, especially when Jefferson returned to America in order to fill his new position as Sec. of State under Pres. Washington. Hamilton commented on this subject in a famous letter to an Edward Carrington of Virginia. As you will see, Hamilton comes from the point of view that Jefferson was Hamilton's antagonist from the very beginning, and caused Hamilton and Madison to become political opponents in order to damage Hamilton's reputation (Hamilton wrote this letter as he was still fuming off from the disappointment of loosing a friend and ally in Madison).

While it is obvious that Jefferson was a political mentor to Madison from the 1790s on, Madison was largely responsible, from what I have seen, for Jefferson's moderation on religious topics. If Madison had not been such a good friend of Jefferson, Jefferson would most probably have espoused the same deism that Paine did (Jefferson was the only Founder that I know of who still welcomed Paine with open arms after the publication of The Age of Reason; Jefferson, as an act of President, ordered Paine to be escorted back to America in a federal man-of-war, much to the outrage of the Federalists and general American public).

Madison also seems to have abandoned several of the principles he once advocated in the Federalist Papers as a result of Jefferson's influence. Historians point out that almost none of the Federalist Papers that are supposed to have been Madison's are found originally in his handwriting. Several numbers are in dispute because Hamilton claimed more numbers than modern historians think he actually wrote. These contested numbers remain contested because there are little or no drafts in Madison's handwriting to settle the issue.

Rob Scot:

Thanks for the contribution; good info. I did a little research myself. Historian Joseph Ellis is of the opinion that the single most important issue which turned Madison against Hamilton and many of the views he had formerly advanced was Hamilton's Report on the Public Credit, and specifically, the federal assumption of state debts. It was not simply that Madison's Virginia (and most of the other Southern colonies) had already repaid most of their wartime debt; Madison's greater concern was that the federal government was consolidating capital at the expense of certain states to the extent that the states would ultimately be compelled to compromise their sovereignty. In the book Founding Brothers, Ellis writes,
" The term (consolidation) conveyed the political fear, so potent among the Antifederalist critics of the constitutional settlement of 1788, that the states would be absorbed by the new federal government . . . If Madison ever managed to convince himself that these historically sanctioned fears had been banished with the creation of the new national government, the debate over assumption demonstrated that they were still very much alive."

Such a line of reasoning for Madison's political transformation makes good sense - if Madison were an uncommitted Federalist. But how does one come to the conclusion that the man arguably most influential in both the drafting and ratification of the Constitution (i.e. the creation of the federal government) was, at heart, not convinced of its right to assume states' debts, thus establishing the national credit while providing a force for domestic unity? I suspect this is where Jefferson, just recently returned from five years in France, comes into the equation.

Our Founding Truth writes:

I tend to agree with hercules mulligan of his assessment in the Madison/Hamilton/Jefferson relationship, but let's not deemphasize the personal aspect of this relationship. Jefferson despised Hamilton, and no doubt relayed his sentiments to Madison. Madison worked with Hamilton, and should have known his character, rather than allowing Jefferson to corrupt his mind. Maybe Madison did reject the fundamentals of Christianity. In 1812, he believed God the Great Spirit, as the one God is the god of all religions, rejecting the First Commandment.

I can see it now, Jefferson convincing Madison that he's dangerous, arrogant, wants an aristocracy with a monarch, an enemy to Republican govt, etc., and Madison bought it. So maybe Hamilton was arrogant, most of them were, and Hamilton thought there was something better than Republican govt. I myself, cannot see that, since govt. ruled by the Law and the Gospel is the pinnacle. However, I am sympathetic of a stronger executive as Britain had, especially now, as our people for the most part, are corrupt.

Take for instance, Hamilton's belief a supreme court decision NEEDS to be executed by the Chief Executive to become law. That is only right and proper. Why didn't Ford or every other President not execute every perverted court decision that was made(roe v wade)? The court should only be able to rule on a case the Congress has authorized them to. This is truly consent of the governed.

In the end, it was personal between them, and Madison was mislead about Hamilton, wrongly accusing him of professional misconduct, and losing a friend.I believe Madison erred by changing his view on govt. supremacy. It seems from Acts 17:26-27, God has ordained nationhood, and that state sovereignty is inferior. The National Charter is based on Biblical Natural Law, which is the highest form of government possible. The states have their rights, but they cannot be superior to the National Charter. The Constitution was more less a covenant between the people, govt, and natural law. Joseph Story elaborates on this in his commentaries.

The Necessary Spring

Anyone who has conducted much research into the thought and writings of the men (and women) who were responsible for shaping the American nation at the time of its founding must come to the conclusion that one of the most highly revered words, arguably falling just behind "liberty," was "virtue". Time and again this word surfaces in the writings, both public and private, of the Founders; and it does not seem to them to be a simple matter of opinion and personal discipline, but an issue vital to the success of the new nation (see This Week's Quote, by Sam Adams, on the left sidebar).

The reasons for this concern are clear enough. If a government derives its authority from the people, then it is in the interest of every individual that the people as a whole exhibit a generally strong character and sense of virtue. In a democratic republic, a virtuous people produce a virtuous government; conversely, a corrupt people produce a corrupt government. Theoretically, under a strong monarchical system, the depraved in a populace could at least be held in check by a virtuous and wise monarch, upon whom the welfare of the nation hung (realistically, the record of foolish and debauched monarchs soundly outstrips the "philosopher kings"); in a republic, there was no such safeguard. The people themselves being ultimately answerable for the state of the nation, it is little wonder that the nation's leaders were eager to exalt the ideal of the virtuous and enlightened citizen.

I have heard it said that the idea of virtue in early America was centered upon public behavior and civic duty, as opposed to the more personal and moral connotations which the word carries today. I do not doubt that this is so. And yet, in examining the statements of some of our most esteemed Founders, one must feel that the type of virtue they often had in mind had a good deal more of the good ol' religious virtue, with all its trappings of morality, than many today would care to admit. In his Farewell Address, George Washington wrote, "Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government." This much has already been established. However, in the lines directly preceding this statement, Washington baldly states the means for bringing about this "virtue or morality." He stated,
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influences of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."

Washington was not alone in this belief. John Adams wrote, "Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," went further. Madison declared,
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God."
To these men, a disintegration of religion in society meant the death knell of virtue, and therefore, America. We could do worse than to pay heed to these voices from our past.

Forum Posting

In response to The Central Bank as Responsible Guardian, hercules mulligan writes:

Interesting post.

I happen to be one of those folks that vehemently opposes the Federal Reserve System, simply because its very name is representative of the crock that it really is: it is not federal, there are no reserves, and (unless its directors are lying, which I believe), it is a very poor system at accomplishing its stated objective: to keep the money supply steady.

I do not oppose the FRS because I believe that the govt. should issue money; I oppose the FRS because a privately-owned central bank is a step WORSE. The Founders did not believe that the govt. should issue money, because they saw the devastating effects of that when the Continental Congress issued money during the Revolution. the Continental Army starved! Inflation skyrocketed! The country went bankrupt! No one could afford a thing!

However, at least the people can choose good representatives who won't do that (though, as you pointed out, this is a rare occurance). But why should we resort to a system that puts our money (and hence, ourselves) into subjection to people we have NO control over? In the case of the FRS, it is the product of a conspiracy between corrupt Congressman and FOREIGN banking dynasties (the Warburgs and Rothschilds, for instance). To learn the details, I would recommend Aaron Russo's documentary "America: Freedom to Fascism" (see www.freedomtofascism.com)and G. E. Griffin's book "The Creature from Jekyll Island." Both are heavily based upon good documentation and sound reasoning and morality.

As to the First Bank ... in political matters, I think that Hamilton was right most of the time, but I am not convinced that the Bank was a good idea (even his son later on opposed the renewal of its charter and the establishment of a Second Bank). I just can't be convinced that a privately-owned central bank that operates on the fractional-reserve principle (loaning more money that you have so that money becomes mere bookkeeping), and which borrows immense amounts of gold from foreigners is a good idea.

Rob Scot responds:

Thanks for the comment.

Though I have not read Griffin's book, I am familiar with its premise and basic claims. I do not think I can reasonably argue against the record that the Fed was brought about in large part by back room dealing and self-serving bankers (although I believe the foreign influence and its threat to be over-rated). However, I nonetheless maintain that the Fed has, by in large, served the economy well. Though, admittedly, its directors profit from its existence, they are dependent upon a strong economy for their well being.

And, as I stated, I do not feel that the economics of a nation can be left to elected officials (who, of necessity, must be more jacks-of-all-trades than specialists). Still, your misgivings at the power placed in the hands of men not beholden to the will of the people is understandable. I believe I can say, as you no doubt believe, that there is a better alternative, though I am not convinced that government control of the economy is a step in the right direction. Perhaps greater government oversight of private control would constitute a better system (as opposed to the current government approval of Fed directors, which is quite obviously a wash); yet having no distinct vision in mind of what such a system would look like, I must say that, for now at least, the status quo should be maintained.

As to fractional-reserve banking, I also must confess misgivings as to its wisdom; it is by no means a prudent system. But I also believe that its ability to expand an economy has been in large part responsible for the ascendency of Western capitalism over the past four centuries and the international influence that the U.S. and Europe now enjoy.

The Central Bank as Responsible Guardian

When Alexander Hamilton first proposed a Central Bank of the U.S., he was met with adamant opposition from many quarters, mostly by the Jeffersonian Republicans. The idea of an essentially privately-owned and operated bank with broad reaching powers both frightened and enraged Jeffersonians. The First Bank of the United States did not initially have its twenty-year charter renewed, consequently. It was revived in the Second Bank in 1816, but was killed again amidst much fierce political drama by President Jackson in the 1830s. It was not until the early twentieth century that the idea of a national bank was brought back by the Federal Reserve System.

Although true Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans are no longer a force in U.S. political society, there are still those who view the Fed with antipathy or downright hatred. Much of this feeling centers on the fact that the Fed, unlike Hamilton's Central Bank, regulates the money supply. Critics claim that this is Constitutionally a right reserved to the Congress (Article I, section 8), and that the privately-owned Fed has the interest of the bankers (and specifically, the Board of Directors) at heart, not the interest of the nation. The implication is that Congress would be more responsible, that through Congress the control of the nation's money supply would be in the citizens' hands, where it belongs. Though this is a compelling, and perhaps theoretically superior, argument, the governance of nations can not be based on theory and idealism alone. Let us examine a current case of a state in which the money supply is controlled by the government, as opposed to a central bank.

Zimbabwe has been ruled by ruthless strongman Robert Mugabe since 1980. Among the many undesirable aspects of his government is that it controls the money supply. Inflation has long been a problem in this one-party state, but in the economic upheaval that followed Mugabe's seizing of white farmers' lands in 2000, things really got bad. As inflation rose, the government's answer to the problem was to simply print more money. Of course, this flood of curreny only made matters worse. The more readily money was made available, the less value it was deemed to have. Prices now double every few months in Zimbabwe, and the inflation rate topped 1000% back in April. Unemployment may be as high as 80%. This is the result of a government (or in this case, one man) in charge of a nation's money supply.

Although Zimbabwe is, admittedly, an extreme example, it is instructive nonetheless. Do we really want to place the money supply of a nation (and hence, the national economy) in the hands of government officials? A government which is truly fiscally responsible is a marvel indeed. Even if they were capable of such a task (which I find highly unlikely), government officials can never be entirely objective in a democracy; at the end of the day, whether in Africa or the United States, government officials are concerned about retaining their own power. A private board of banking directors, who have risen to the top, not via a semi-informed electorate, but through a lifetime of merit and achievment in the economic sphere must be recognized as a more practical solution. It was this solution which was proposed by Hamilton back in 1790, supported by President Washington, and passed by Congress. And it is this solution that we have today, in modified fashion, in the Federal Reserve System.

Forum Posting

In response to Theories of Democracy: Part IV (an assessment of elitism), Snake Hunters wrote:

If we could secure a 'Modified Elite' that would require a voter to have a minimum High School Diploma, the National Interest might have a greater chance of survival!

Rob Scot replies:

I must confess some affinity for elitism, myself. Realistically, though, I am afraid we would find ourselves disappointed with educated elites and citizens as well. Don't misunderstand me, education is vital to democracy. But at bottom, it is the human condition, not lack of education, that makes democracy such a difficult (though worthwhile) enterprise.

Theories of Democracy: Conclusion

Democratic government has never come easily. Sacrifice, often to the point of shedding blood, is the standard of its inception by fire. When one considers the history of democracy, and of the people who have ensured its continued existence, it seems the modern man's task, of implementing from the variety of known democratic theories, is a comparatively easy one. But in truth, it is a most daunting task, the results of which can indeed decide the fate of democracy in relation to a given people. As these posts have demonstrated, the differing systems of majoritarianism, proportionalism, pluralism, and elitism all maintain respective strengths and weaknesses. Where they are most or least likely to offer the best opportunity for freedom and good government to the people is dependent on various factors, such as history and culture, the education and size of the populace, the centralization of the government, etc. It is unrealistic and unwise to expect that a single, static form of democratic government can best serve the needs of our diverse world at this point in history, or for any time in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, it is vital that these systems be studied and understood by all peoples who desire the freedom of democracy. For just as surely as their right implementation can mean the realization of that freedom, their misplacement can entail anarchy and despotism.

Theories of Democracy: Part IV

The final theory which will be here considered is elitism. This theory claims that a “democratic” state is (or should be) controlled by a small number of powerful individuals who, by virtue of their wealth, business connections, and experience make all the important government decisions (Janda, et al, 46). These are the “elite”. The mass populace has access to certain aspects of government, such as elections and means of redress, but ultimately, the outcome lies with the elite. On the surface, it seems evident that elitism is not a democratic theory at all; it appears to be nothing more than an oligarchy of the super rich, who use their incredible wealth to advance their own financially based agendas under the facade of democracy.

But according to some theorists, this is not the case, or at best, it is an incomplete account. The elite control government, not solely because they can, but because they are best suited to do so. They are the gifted few who have both the knowledge of what decisions would best benefit the society as a whole, and the means to make those decisions reality. Defenders of elitism would claim that the vastness of modern economics, technology, foreign policy, and politics in general is such that the classical idea of a government truly by the mass of the people is simply not feasible. Democracy must therefore be redefined in light of “the stable, constitutional, and liberal nature of the system of elite pluralism” (Bachrach, 8). In such a system, policy decisions are made with an efficiency that can not be realized under any of the systems previously discussed. The elite, being few in number, can work together decisively to further the interests of the state. This is beneficial to both the elite, whose power is derived from the financial and otherwise health of the state, and the people, who live and work within its boundaries. Elitism need not mean the abuse of the people; indeed, elitism is to a great extent congenial to pluralism, as its interest groups present the concerns of the people to the government through the lobbying of the power-holders.

Despite this defense of elitism, the fact remains that it is in many ways not compatible with a sincere democratic theory. Though elitists may cite realism as a tenet of their theory, they overemphasize the unrealistic possibility that a handful of people can control a nation's finances and general governance while still keeping the best interest of the people at heart; power corrupts. Though it may provide a level of government efficiency, elitism keeps the people out of the political process. In this, the democrat believes that the elites are doing the people a great disservice. There is an overwhelming sentiment among democratic theorists that good democracy is not simply an end; it is a virtue by its very means. When it is absent, even under a stable, efficient elitism, the common man can not be expected to reach his intellectual and human potential (Dahl, 55). In the words of John Stuart Mill,

"The nation as a whole, and every individual composing it, are without any potential voice in their own destiny. They exercise no will in respect to their collective interests. All is decided for them ... What sort of human beings can be formed under such a regimen?" (Padover, 20)

Most telling of all is the fact that elitism is founded upon the premise of the inability of the people to effectually govern themselves, which strikes at the very heart of the entire theory of democracy (Kelso, 39).

Theories of Democracy: Part III

When the idea of democracy was embraced during the Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it was firmly entrenched in the ideals of classical liberalism. As both have grown in acceptance the world over, they have, in the opinion of many, come to be inseparable. Thus the theory of democracy as government of and by the people may be centered not around the principle of majority rule or even proportional representation, but around the principle of the welfare of the people. In his political writings, Englishman John Locke emphasized the idea of individual rights, particularly life, liberty, and property. According to Locke, government is established with the primary objective of preserving these rights (Bulliet, et al, 582). Thus, the American republic was founded, not on the idea of majority rule, but with the aim to secure these “inalienable rights”. It is in this idea that the seeds of the theory of pluralism are to be found.

A pluralistic representative democracy should not to be viewed so much as a stark alternative to the majoritarian model; it incorporates the idea of majority rule on many levels. Rather, pluralism is a revised form of the classical system. The term “pluralism”appeared in American politics in the 1950s and 1960s as a theory which defines modern democracy in terms of power elites and competing interest groups (Kelso, 3). These interest groups represent various groups in society, made up of individuals who have a common interest (Janda, et al 44). The leaders of these interest groups speak on their respective individuals' behalf at the government level. In this way, minorities may have a proportionally strong voice in government, depending on the strength of their interest group. Consequently, this model of democracy does not require much active participation on the part of the people at large, a marked difference from majoritarianism and proportionalism. Also in contrast to those models, pluralism is benefitted by a decentralized system, as exemplified by federalism in the U.S., in which officials and vehicles of government are accessible to the interest groups of the public (Janda, et al, 128).

Proponents of pluralism claim that it is the superior method of democratic government for a number of reasons. As noted above, the interest groups should provide minorities with an effective barrier against abuse by a potentially hostile majority. Along the same lines, the competing interest groups work in such a way as to restrain monopolies, both in government and the public sphere. In this way, pluralism bears resemblance to the economic theory of free-market capitalism, which is seen by many as an important aspect of democratic development (Kelso, 6). Adherents of pluralistic theory also note the bargaining process that is a hallmark of the system's decision-making process (as opposed to majoritarianism's clearly defined winners and losers) as a great strength (Kelso, 77). Compromise, as already noted, is an integral part of successful democratic process. Here, then, pluralism exemplifies traits in common with proportionalism.

The majoritarian would again counter that this is simply a sugarcoated theory of indecisiveness and inefficiency, and therefore, adverse to good government. But, in fact, pluralism, owing probably to its competitive nature, is not generally an inactive system; quite the opposite. However, majoritarians and proportionalists would join together in criticizing pluralism's nature of granting the people a more passive role in politics. Another seeming fault of pluralism is its dependence upon the leaders, or lobbyists, of interest groups. Since these leaders are paid professionals, not elected officials, pluralism may allow an unfair amount of influence to be wielded by a particular group, simply because its constituents are wealthy (Janda, et al, 48).

Theories of Democracy: Part II

This problem of dissatisfaction resulting from the minority in a majoritarian system is addressed by the theory of proportionalism, which states that the representation in a state's governing body should reflect the diversity, as opposed to the majority, of the electorate (Janda, et al, 254). For example, suppose parties A and B each have ten candidates up for election to the legislature, in which there are ten available seats. Party A has the support of 70% of the population, and party B has the remaining 30%. In a majoritarian system, party A, having the clear majority, would win all ten seats. Conversely, in a proportional system, party A would be awarded 7 seats, and the remaining 3 would be go to the leading candidates from party B. In such a way, the proportionalist method offers a more accurate representation of the people, and is therefore, its proponents claim, a truer model of democracy. It may even be said that this system more closely resembles the direct democracy of the ancient city-states, in that no individual voice should go unheard (Mayo, 101). Consequently, the rights of the minority are afforded more of a safeguard.


For proportionalism to work effectively, however, there is another condition required, in addition to the informed public. Without a considerable degree of homogeneity of culture and willingness to compromise, the system will, in all likelihood, not be able to function with success. In a state of any considerable size, and especially given the diversity of cultural history in so many modern nations, this presents a definite stumbling block. The two-party system most congenial to majoritarianism may inadvertently polarize society over certain issues, but the extremely broad base of either party means that there will of necessity be varying alliances and points of agreement between them. However, in a culturally diverse society in which there is a proportionalistic system, the many parties representing express views (a party's platform could theoretically be a single issue) will be less willing to compromise. The result will be a standstill in government action. In the opinion of political theorist H. B. Mayo,


"Even if we grant that (proportionalism) solves difficulties of representation, it increases the difficulties of policy-making, and a political system exists to make policies, not merely to give psychological release to voters." (Mayo, 129)


In response to these criticisms, the proportionalist may well cite the historically proven fact that any democratic system relies upon compromise as a vital element of its success, and that therefore any proportionalistic system would naturally take into account the ability of the people to work together. And in the event that a people does share a common history, culture, and worldview, proportionalism offers the best method of government.

Theories of Democracy: Part I

Of these theories, majoritarianism seems the nearest to the idea of direct democracy. The majority rule principle, stated simply, is that the course chosen by the greatest number of participating individuals is the course that prevails. In a direct democracy, the methods for achieving such a ruling would be fairly obvious and simple. In a representative democracy, majority rule is demonstrated in the popular election of representatives ( ideally, through a universal suffrage incorporating political equality), and in the subsequent decision making of those representatives, mirroring the convictions of the majority which elected them. In this way, the majoritarian model seems to satisfy the requirements of democratic government “by the people”, albeit indirectly. There must of course arise conflict in any society, and what more reasonable method of resolving it than through the un-slanted decision of majority rule? This makes good sense for a number of reasons. Foremost, as noted in the opinion of Aristotle, is the logical conclusion that the majority will, more likely than not, be right (Mayo, 174). There is also the issue just hinted at, namely, that there is feasibly no better option. Abraham Lincoln summed up this sentiment as follows:

"Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left" (Mayo, 179).

Yet another benefit of the majoritarian model is its decisiveness; a majority ruling, once achieved, is the end of the matter (until the majority shifts).

There is, however, a vital condition, upon which Aristotle's aforementioned assumption, and in fact the whole theory of majoritarianism, depends. The majority (that is, the bulk of the people as a whole) must possess both educated knowledge and a sincere interest in the issues of their governance. This can be a difficult objective, and consequently, it is seldom realized on a scale the size of which would imply legitimacy for the majoritarian principle. In the United States, one of the world's most vocal champions of democracy, current research has concluded that less than of quarter of the national public stays reasonably informed in matters of government (Janda, et al, 41). Such a society does not provide fertile ground for the cultivation of a political theory which places the final say in matters of public interest with the people.

Another condition of the majoritarian model is a strongly centralized government (Janda, et al, 45). This, obviously, is because the process of obtaining a broad-based majority ruling on any policy requires much organization on the part of the authorities. A statewide referendum (popular vote on public policy) would be very difficult to achieve in a decentralized government, where planning, process, and results could easily become bogged down in bureaucratic red tape.

Though majority rule may seem the logical course for democratic government, it can cause much dissatisfaction when its results are such as to cause the opinions of the minority to be disregarded. It is here that majoritarianism gets a bit muddled with regards to faithfully adhering to democratic theory. It is the majority which is sovereign, which ultimately decides what shall and shall not be, based upon the will of the majority of the people. But this is not the same thing as the will of the people, technically speaking, for a large portion of that body (as much as 49%) may actually be opposed to the majority ruling. This, in the opinion of some, is enough to make majoritarianism a flawed interpretation of democracy. According to others, majority rule is valid insofar as it does not infringe upon the minorities' rights.

Theories of Democracy: An Introduction

For nearly twenty centuries, since the passing of the Greek city-states' and Roman Republic's extraordinary experiments in self-government, democracy lay dormant. Though it may be argued that vestiges of it were to be found in some of the governments and assemblies of medieval kingdoms, it was not until around the seventeenth century that democracy was again taken up and seriously examined. Since then, however, it has been inextricably interwoven with the fabric of western civilization. From the radical ideals of the Enlightenment, through the impassioned revolutions of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, up to and beyond the violent destruction of the twentieth century wars which were fought in the sacred defense of this philosophy, democracy could well be called the defining mark of the modern age. What is this great movement which so influences the daily lives of our world?

Democracy has undergone many alterations since its first days in Greece. Whereas the citizens of Athens deliberated on local matters through direct democracy by way of assembling in person in the Ekklesia, this sort of government, obviously, is not feasible for the vast nation-states which comprise our modern world, (Padover, xvii). Rather, the idea of representative democracy has prevailed. In such a system, the mass of the common people is spoken for by a select number of individuals. These individuals, or representatives, being chosen through popular elections, should to some degree reflect the opinions of the populace from which they obtain their legitimacy. In order for this representation to be viewed as being carried out with integrity according to the ideals of democratic government, however, there are certain prerequisites which must be met. Exactly what these requirements are is not always clear. Most political scientists agree that a true democracy should include such traits as political equality, universal participation, and certain rights for all citizens, among others (Janda, et al 36). But what if the ramifications of these policies conflict with one another? It requires little contemplation for one to realize that this system of indirect democracy, especially when undertaken in a nation of many millions of citizens, is subject to much greater complications than a simple direct democracy. In a series of posts, I will examine several theories which seek an answer to the question of how best to conduct a representative democracy. Included will be the points at which these theories conflict, as well as overlap. The basic theories briefly addressed herein are those of majoritarianism, proportionalism, pluralism, and elitism.

The Setting: The First Bank of the United States

When the government of the United States of America, under the newly ratified Constitution, came to power in 1789, there was much to be apprehensive about. After a bloody war for independence that officially dragged on for eight years, the American experiment had floundered and nearly capsized under the Articles of Confederation. Now, the experiment had recieved a new lease under the Constitution, but the fate of the nation was anything but certain.

Among the many concerns confronting the new government was the difficulty of developing a stable financial plan that could move the nation forward and solidify the legitimacy of the government. Enter Alaxander Hamilton. Having served as a colonel on George Washington's staff during the war, and having attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787 of which Washington was the appointed president, Hamilton now recived the vital seat of Secretary of the Treasury in the President's cabinet. Washington trusted Hamilton's judgement in general, but particularly with regards to finance. The President knew how to delegate, and he saw fit to place the financial future of the young republic in hands more able (in this regard) than his own. He was not to be disappointed.

Hamilton soon introduced to the Congress an extensive and meticulously laid out financial plan to set the nation on firm footing. Through the government imposition of tariffs and excise taxes, the repayment of war bonds to veterans, and the federal assumption of the states' debts, Hamilton sought to raise revenue, establish credit, and unify the nation. A final aspect of the plan called for the chartering of a national bank, the Bank of the United States.

The Bank of the United States was based upon the Bank of England. Hamilton proposed the bank for a number of solidly logical reasons. It would serve as a means to secure the federal government's tax revenue; provide additional revenue through the issuing of government bonds; increase capital by way of security deposits both foreign and domestic; provide a ready source of funds to the government in the event of an emergency (such as a war or natural disaster). Where it differed for the Bank of England was in the area of management; the Bank of the United States would be largely a private enterprise carried on for the good of the government and the national welfare. Only one fifth of the bank's capital would be provided directly by the government; as a predominantly private venture, the bank was thus partially hedged away from the possibility of government corruption or ineffeciency.

The bank, along with the rest of Hamilton's plan, was wisely approved by Congress and the President, though not without a bitter struggle. The opposition came from the emerging Republican party, headed ably (and duplicitously) by the Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson.

Despite the obvious (from Hamilton's viewpoint) merits of a national bank, Jefferson was staunchly opposed to the idea. Although some aspects of his argument may be viewed as legitimate (e.g. the national bank would disproportionately benefit the more industrial north), one is inclined to view his opposition as largely emotionally charged and grounded more in prejudice than firm logic. Jefferson, like most wealthy Southerners, hated banks. Being perpetually in debt due to the cost of maintaining the lifestyle expected of the Virginia gentry, Jefferson could see nothing but oppression in any bank, but the idea of a national Bank of the United States was particularly horrifying.

As absurd as Jefferson's opinion may sound to modern ears (and to the ears of Hamilton and his Federalist collegues), it must be realized that it sprang from his vision of America. As a vision of a nation of "yeomen farmers" sustained by a seemingly infinate opportunity for land, it was vastly different from Hamilton's vision of a land supporting not merely agriculture, but industry, commerce, and economic growth. Ultimately, Jefferson's vision proved to be an idealistic dream; Hamilton's vision has prevailed.

Hamilton's argument that the bank would be indispensible in the event of a national crisis such as a war proved to be most pertinent; ironically, just at the time when it was most needed, it was unavailable. In 1811, Congress had decided not to renew the bank's 20-year charter. By this time, Hamilton was gone, and a Republican, Jefferson's long-time ally James Madison, was in the White House. Without an adequate means of funding the war, and with a grossly insufficient army and navy (Hamilton had also pushed for a strong standing army, ultimately without success), the War of 1812 with Britain was disastrous; thankfully, the emerging republic weathered the storm.