tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79211973308867550212024-02-19T23:46:23.750-08:00The Hamiltonian Federalist ForumThis forum is intended to facilitate discussion and debate of a historical and political nature, regarding democracy and, particularly, the politics of the early American republic. Contributors may expect to see their relevant comments posted to further the goal of the forum, that is, to increase understanding of the vision that was, and is, America.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-89433607570175237512010-02-28T23:38:00.000-08:002010-02-28T23:39:47.062-08:00Who Needs the Federal Government?I've been ruminating lately over the seemingly increasing traction being gained by various conservative political ideas and organizations. A few nights ago I was listening to a radio newscast at the top of the hour on a conservative station. The story was about how millions of dollars had been squandered by the Federal Census Bureau, and the reporter introduced the topic by stating that the cited report was further proof "that the federal government isn't capable of running anything." This is just one example (and a rather mild one, at that) of the anti-Washington feelings that, to me, are just a bit over the top. Such sentiments are, of course, nothing new in this, our land of perpetual rebellious individualism. But the volume and rhetoric of the conversation over this past year has grown to a fever pitch that I find perhaps just obnoxious, but maybe even dangerous. I mean, honestly, why do we even need a national government?<br /><br />Now let me clarify by saying that I consider myself a moderate conservative. But the vehemence and recklessness of those who are currently standing in as the most influential voices of conservative political thought in America has left me disappointed, to say the least. That these educated people truly believe that our nation is on the verge of Soviet-style oligarchy, that America could find itself under the heel of despotism any day now, is a notion I find hard to swallow. For those who place such a premium upon the founding documents and personalities of our American nation (which is, I believe, as it should be), I offer this bit of frustration from the pen of Alexander Hamilton in <em>The Federalist no. 29</em>: "Where, in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen, and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits, and interests?" Hamilton was writing with regards to the states' power of appointing officers to serve in the militia, which, of course, may be called into national service, but I think the sentiment may illustrate a broader issue. If we realistically expect to exist under the authority of a government with power sufficient to accomplish its purpose, we must of necessity grant that government a degree of <em>trust</em>. Indeed, the whole of The Federalist papers may be summed up as an argument in favor of granting the public trust to a democratic government, painstakingly created so as to protect the rights of the people.<br /><br />No doubt some reader may think me naive or stupidly idealistic for seeming to pledge blind loyalty to our federal government. I propose nothing of the sort. As citizens of a republic made up of fallible and all too often self-seeking individuals, it is our duty to remain informed of the proposed solutions to our nation's challenges, to weigh the same according to their merit, and to ensure that the government which we have elected to represent us is acting within the constitutional sphere by which it is legally bound. But it seems to me that there comes a point at which the citizen must ask himself whether he is favorable to allowing the government to do those things for which it has been established; namely, things which individuals or profit-driven entities either cannot or should not hope to accomplish, but which are necessary to the general welfare. At such a point, I believe there can be found no better alternative than entrusting such work to a constitutionally-limited government popularly elected by a democratic society. But such a decision does certainly involve a degree of trust. And while I don't, strictly-speaking, have any sons or brothers in the federal government, I certainly have many fellow-citizens.<br /><br />As a final reflection on the bent of our current political rhetoric, I again turn to Hamilton. In closing <em>no. 29</em>, he asks, "Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts?" Might I tag "parties out of power" to the end of that statement?Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-44758275896491349162010-02-22T10:24:00.000-08:002010-02-22T10:35:12.913-08:00Happy Birthday, To His ExcellencyToday marks the anniversary of the birthday of George Washington, a man to whom I feel perhaps no accolades can be exaggerated. I believe no single individual approaches Washington's influence in the founding of our republic; quite simply, without him the United States of America would have been strangled in infancy, if not by the British during the War for Independence, then by our own domestic squabbles following our establishment as an independent nation. <div><br /></div><div>I join today with Henry Lee in affirming that George Washington, the General, the President, the American, was "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countryman." </div>Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-47263692072011565002008-07-04T21:36:00.000-07:002008-07-04T21:40:30.964-07:00Forum PostingIn response to <em>Independence Day: Counting the Cost</em>, <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/09359315762800176142">Hercules Mulligan</a> writes:<br /><br /><br />I too have been pondering the sacrifice our forefathers made for their stand on the words of the Declaration. It may be easy for us to eulogize their devotion and sacrifice, but it will be very difficult to realize exactly all that that truth entails.<br /><br />Have you ever read the Narrative of Joseph Plum Martin? He was a soldier in the Continental Army (not the militia; General Washington's full-time Continentals) throughout the entire duration of the War -- from the Declaration to the Treaty of Paris. It is astounding. It is also sad that too many Americans are not familiar with this fabulous work, and not familiar with the sacrifice they made.How much we take for granted!<br /><br />So many times we see pictures like "The Spirit of '76," and we think that the fervency of the Revolution, the spirit of liberty, self-reliance, virtue, and responsibility were just for those people back then. We think of ourselves as being more sophisticated and advanced, and that now we can afford to have the government do things for us, and we don't need to be as devoted to the cause of liberty today.We need to understand that liberty is not fought for and won at one time. Jefferson once said that "eternal vigilance is the cost of liberty." We need to continue to guard the liberty for which our forefathers shed their blood.<br /><br />On days like these, there is no greater time to remember that. There is also no greater time to remember how much God has blessed us, so that we do not have to pay such a heavy price generation after generation to enjoy our freedom.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-62570554725209303092008-07-04T12:20:00.000-07:002008-07-04T12:43:13.299-07:00Independence Day: Counting the CostOn July 4th, 1776, the Second Continental Congress, assembled in Philadelphia, adopted the Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America. The resolution to declare independence from Great Britain had been adopted, after almost a month of fierce debate, only two days prior, and it had fallen to a committe of five representatives (Thomas Jefferson, who did most of the writing, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston) to draft a formal declaration. <br /><br />Jefferson's eloquent words have stirred feelings of patriotism ever since, not only in the hearts of Americans, but in all freedom-loving peoples. It should be noted that as they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors, they realized what their bold action could very well mean. Though their honor is forever secure, many did indeed lose their fortunes, and some their lives, or the lives of their loved ones. Below is a link to an article, provided by Dr. Murphy Smith, of Texas A&M University, paying homage to those whose signature was to cost them so much.<br /><br /><a href="http://acct.tamu.edu/smith/ethics/July4_1776_Signers.htm">The Costs of Liberty</a><br /><br />To those fifty-six, and to all the men and women who have sacrificed for the liberty of this country, I offer the tribute of a citizen's grateful heart. Happy Independence Day!Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-28018595450302356522008-06-30T09:54:00.000-07:002008-06-30T09:57:23.426-07:00Constitutional Proposals, Part V: Final Considerations<em>Other Considerations</em>. Dahl makes mention of several other general concerns regarding the democratic nature of our constitution (written and unwritten) which he feels should at least become part of the discussion; I will briefly address two in closing. They relate to the nature of our presidential system and to the place of primaries in democratic elections.<br /> Although Dahl states truthfully that the American presidency is almost wholly unique among the democracies of the world, he does not go so far as to directly call it undemocratic. To do so, as he no doubt well knows, would be untrue. He does, however, question the wisdom of maintaining such a system in which the roles of chief executive and head of state are combined in a single individual. Although I understand Dahl's misgivings, I believe that the American presidency has become so firmly ingrained into our national and political culture that any attempt to alter or abolish it would be not simply futile, but counter-productive as well. The President of the United States has become a symbol not only of the nation, but of the ideal of a democratic government that is at once strong and limited. In my mind, the idea of a separate head of state makes no sense for America. It is understandable in nations such as the U.K., where centuries of monarchy have provided a head of state that can be seen as both legitimate and relevant. But in the U.S., a separate head of state, having neither political power nor historical relevance, would be viewed as without purpose, and thus fail to serve as a symbol of national unity and pride, which is in large part the reason for the existence of such an office. <br /> A final recommendation which I will mention, related to the idea of opportunity and campaign finance, addresses the system of voting primaries. Although they may be viewed as democratic in a strict sense, I must conclude otherwise. By virtue of their cost both to citizens and government, their tendency to cause inter-party strife, and the possibility that they provide to allow for the nomination of a candidate that is not representative of the majority of party voters, I believe that they are a detriment to democracy. Accordingly, I would generally call for the abolishment of primaries, or at the least a stated limit to their scope. <br /> <em>Conclusion</em>. These preceding posts have addressed several aspects of the U.S. Constitution and American political culture which, I feel, could be improved upon from a democratic standpoint. Although I believe our constitution to be an incredible and historic document, it is intended to be, as Dahl states, “an instrument of democratic government – nothing more, nothing less” (39). As such, it should and must be scrutinized by every generation which cares about the implementation of true democratic principles in American society.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-89496030414545295112008-06-12T09:10:00.000-07:002008-06-17T13:31:03.229-07:00Forum PostingIn response to <em>Constitutional Proposals Part IV: Proportional Representation in the House</em>, <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/17066062612690437163">Wilf Day</a> writes:<br /><br />A proportional system for the House of Representatives need not reduce the level of regionally specific representation, if elected state-by-state, as I assume they would be. Indeed, with a 5% threshold California could elect at-large representatives proportionally in two districts.<br />You have not specified whether at-large representatives would be calculated as "compensatory" (to top-up the single-district results) or in parallel with the district results. The parallel system, used in Japan but not in Europe, gives a voters for a party who have elected more than their share of single-district representatives, and are therefore over-represented, still more congressional representatives, for no obvious reason. I assume, therefore, that you propose a compensatory calculation, but it would be clearer to say so.<br /><br />Rob Scot writes:<br /><br />Thank you for your contribution, and for allowing me to clarify my position. I am not familiar with the term compensatory in this context, but I believe I understand your point. In a system which seeks to combine both majoritarian and proportional elections in order to utilize the benefits of both, it seems most appropriate to have the proportional seats "compensate" for any inequality which may have been manifested by the majoritarian, or single-member district, elections. In other words, after the single-district direct elections have been tallied, the remaining seats are appointed by party based upon a second, general vote that will reflect voter demographics; the results of this second, proportional vote will serve to more fairly balance the representation. In this way, the benefits of majoritarianism via direct elections (i.e. simpler political process for voters and politicians, greater accountability to voters) are combined with the benefits of proportionalism (greater fairness and political equality in representation).Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-26378194355471243382008-06-10T09:44:00.001-07:002008-06-10T09:45:27.537-07:00Constitutional Proposals Part IV: Proportional Representaion in the HouseDahl takes issue with what he calls the “American hybrid,” that is, a constitution which is neither strongly majoritarian (by virtue of multiple majorities in a system of checks and balances) and yet has little consensual or proportional aspects to it; in fact, it “may possess the advantages of neither and the defects of both” types of systems (115). With regards to the first charge about the weakness of American majoritarianism, I am inclined to disagree with Dahl. I believe the American system of checks and balances as laid out in our present constitution is both democratic and practical, and Dahl himself admits that “the evidence is mixed” regarding the efficiency or inefficiency of such a system (111). With regards to the second charge about a lack of proportionality under our present constitution, I must agree that the single district, winner-take-all method of election, most notably in the U.S. House of Representatives, is neither very fair nor democratic. To rectify this problem, I would support the implementation of a system which combines proportional representation with single member districts, as suggested by Dahl.<br /> The reason for such a combination is rooted in the idea that the elected members of the House are representatives, that they are inclined to more or less act on the behalf of the citizens back in their district who elected them. This is something of a hallmark of American government, as I believe it should be. A proportional system, for all its advantages of political equality, greatly reduces the level of regionally specific representation. For these reasons, a combination of the two may be most appropriate for our federal nation. In such a system, half of the seats in the House would be occupied by members elected by majorities in single-member districts, thus satisfying the representative aspect. The other half of the seats would be filled by party nominees, based proportionally upon the voting results from the election, ensuring that minority voters would be fairly represented in the House even if they lost in the single-member district elections, and thus satisfying the political equality aspect.<br /> It should be noted that a criticism of proportional representation is that it is impractical and inefficient for a society which lacks a strong common culture, whether ethnic, religious, geographic, etc. I believe this is a fair criticism, and in a nation such as the U.S. is worthy of consideration. However, I also believe that a critic could logically predict that a two-party system, such as we now possess, is apt to strong discontent and eventual upheaval. And yet, American politicians for over two centuries have maintained a strong government under a two-party system. They have done this by forming coalitions within their own parties and with members of the opposition, and by the successful utilization of compromise, that vital element of any democracy. For this reason, I believe that a proportional system could be made to work in the U.S., for though Americans do indeed lack a common ethnic, religious, and geographic heritage, we possess a great political heritage.<br /> A final note on proportional representation: given the very real possibility of single-issue or radical parties preventing efficiency in the legislature (another justified criticism), there should be a minimum threshold above which a party must rise in order to seat a candidate. For the sake of efficiency and as a bulwark against minority radicalism, I would propose that this threshold be set rather high, at a minimum of 5%, at least.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-47848583076355074482008-04-19T22:06:00.001-07:002008-04-19T22:08:09.888-07:00Forum PostingIn response to <em>Constitutional Proposals Part III: The Judiciary</em>, <a href="http://ahpatriot.blogspot.com/">hercules mulligan</a> writes:<br /><br />Now such an amendment doesn't sound like such a bad idea! I think that it's about time the judiciary was put back in its place.I am not aware, however, of any place in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the power of "judicial review" per se; I remember that the question of giving the judiciary taht power did come up during the Constitutional Convention, but they did not give the judicial branch that power, nor did they necessarily forbid it. I think that it is a concept that has grown over the years, and has been taken to extremities thanks to 20th century revisionism.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-50150581509726354042008-03-15T22:11:00.000-07:002008-04-19T22:09:50.884-07:00Constitutional Proposals Part III: The JudiciaryContinuing my critique of our Constitution as a tool of government, I proceed now to the issue of the judiciary. Dahl points out the power of the federal judiciary in what has developed as judicial review as being, in essence, “judicial legislation” or policy-making (19). Although there is an apparent, even critical, benefit to having a judiciary with the jurisdiction to review laws for the purpose of assuring their constitutionality, it is, as Dahl notes, a rather undemocratic notion that a group of nine individuals, appointed (not elected) for life, has the authority to “declare as unconstitutional laws that (have) been properly passed by Congress and signed by the president” (18). In order to amend for this constitutional deficiency, I propose the following.<br />I do not see a need to change the basic structure and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary. Nor do I propose the abolishing of judicial review, but rather, simply a limit to the scope of its power. I believe, as Dahl suggests, that the Supreme Court should have the authority to declare as unconstitutional laws which impinge upon the most basic tenants of democratic belief and practice, such as the protection of rights and civil liberties, political equality, universal suffrage, etc. However, in a departure from current judicial precedence and practice, I would propose a constitutional amendment limiting binding decisions by the Supreme Court to cases in which there is unanimity among the ruling justices and constitutionality is clearly threatened (that is, a unanimous court may bindingly rule a law unconstitutional only by demonstration that it is so according to the strict construction of the constitution). This is not to say that the court can not rule upon laws in which constitutionality is vague or in which there is not unanimity among the justices. The difference would be that in such cases, the court's decision would be non-binding. A non-binding decision would serve the purpose of calling attention to an issue which the court deemed as being unconstitutional. Following such a ruling, if there was in fact broad consensus in the media, among politicians, and in the general public, then there would be a strong likelihood of the measure in question being overturned, via the democratic procedure. By the same token, the likelihood of rulings leading to the repeal of laws that are generally accepted as being constitutional would be almost non-existent, while judicial policy-making would be practically impossible.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-19486983371729610822008-02-12T19:43:00.000-08:002008-02-12T19:59:08.993-08:00A Humble Tribute to the Man Who Saved the UnionIt seems appropriate on this day, the birthday of our 17th President, to draw attention to the fact that <em>The Federalist,</em> that collaborative work which has for 220 years epitomized the eloquent defense of our Constitution and all its values, begins first and foremost with a rationale that that document should be accepted based on the assertion that a Union of the several states would be in every manner superior to a group of confederacies or independent republics. Publius was able to convince his readers of this fact in 1787-88, but by the middle of the next century an entire region of the United Stated was openly challenging this assertion. It fell to another man to do the convincing, and regrettably, by that point the issue was beyond being settled by well-crafted essays; the only recourse left open to him was war.<br /><br />Abraham Lincoln was not a popular president; he was loathed in the South, and hated by more than a few in the North as well. His tenure was fraught with the most trying circumstance immaginable, a civil war, from the moment of his inauguration. Yet Lincoln never wavered in his firm conviction that, above all, THE UNION MUST BE PRESERVED. It would ultimately cost him his life.<br /><br />In <em>The Federalist No. 2,</em> John Jay writes, "I sincerely wish that it may be as clearly forseen by every good citizen, that whenever the dissolution of the Union arrives, America will have reason to exclaim, in the words of the poet, 'Farewell! A long Farewell to all my Greatness!'" Linclon did indeed foresee that reality, at a time when many did not. For that, he is deserving of the lasting gratitude of his countrymen, of which I am one.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-20644398935262202202008-02-10T19:46:00.000-08:002008-02-10T19:53:23.501-08:00Constitutional Proposals Part II: The Senate<em>Senate Representation</em>. Given the gross misrepresentation of population and political inequality sustained by the U.S. Senate, it is apparent that major changes are in order if we are interested in creating a more democratic constitution. Some may argue that there is no need for a Senate at all, and that our bicameral system is only an impediment to efficiency and an outdated bulwark against true political equality. However, I am inclined to believe that the Senate serves an important duty. As a smaller house than that of the Representatives, it can afford to be more deliberative; by dividing certain aspects of governance between the House and Senate (such as the origination of finance bills and the approval of treaties and executive appointments, respectively), greater specialization is allowed; most importantly, the Senate, if organized in the manner I now propose, can be a more truly national body, not beholden to regional constituencies in the way that the House inevitably must (and should) be.<br /> <br />To prevent the kind of unequal representation which is now present in the Senate, I propose the election of Senators by federal districts based on population. However, in order to avoid back room political bargaining such as gerrymandering, the districts would be organized along permanent state borders. Accordingly, a single-member district would be comprised of several small states, while large states would elect several members by a proportional method, based on their population. Senatorial candidates would be nominated by their respective national party, inevitably allowing for more broad-based and nationally oriented candidates, while also simplifying the election process for both citizens and government, particularly in the multi-member districts. <br /> <br />In case this system seems unclear, take the following as an example. If we allow for the number of Senators to be permanently fixed at fifty (which, I believe, is neither so small as to lack wise counsel, nor so large as to be inefficient), then, with the present U.S. population of approximately 300 million, each senatorial district will be comprised of an approximate population of 6 million. The populations of the states of Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming together equal roughly 6 million, therefore these states would be reckoned as a single federal district, with all citizens within these state borders electing a single Senator. California, however, with a population of just over 36 million, would itself be a multi-member district, in this case electing 6 senators. These candidates for the Californian district, having been placed on the ballot by their respective parties, would then be elected proportionally so as to adequately represent the political demographics of the district. For example, if 65% of California's population is Democratic, and 35% is Republican, than the Democrats would be allotted four seats and the Republicans two.<br /> <br />Finally, as regards the term limits of senators, I see no reason to change the established six-year, rotating terms of office. However, I would alter the current system with regards to residency requirements. Not only would senators not be required to reside in the federal district from which they were elected, but they would be forbidden from running for reelection from the same district by which they currently serve. This, along with nomination by the national party and (in some cases) election from a district encompassing multiple states, would further encourage senators to think in terms of the national welfare, as opposed to seeking to please state and regional constituencies. In sum, such a Senate would provide for a democratically elected body (as regards the political equality of voters), relatively free to deliberate and legislate on issues of truly national interest as their primary concern.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-18902280991739327142008-01-30T21:29:00.000-08:002008-02-03T21:15:27.505-08:00Forum PostingIn response to <em>Constitutional Proposals (Presidential Election),</em> Stephen Palmer writes:<br /><br />Rob, this is a critically important issue to bring to light, and I appreciate your comments.<br /><br />Almost without exception, the Founders understood, with Aristotle, that next to tyranny, democracy is the worst form of government. This understanding is displayed all throughout the Federalist Papers.What people fail to realize is the difference between a democratic culture, and a Democracy in terms of governmental forms.<br /><br />The Founders wanted a Constitutional Republic that supported a democratic society, or a society where people truly believed and lived the ideal that all men and women are created equal in the sight of God. A democratic society is a mobile society; people are free to move up and down social classes as they see fit. However, a democratic form of government is something entirely different.<br /><br />I also write alot about this issue on my blog and I think you and I could have some interesting discussions. I look forward to hearing from you!<br /><br />Rob Scot replies:<br /><br />I acknowledge that a good government must in some repects be, strictly speaking, undemocratic. However, there is a fine line to tread when we speak of a government designed to uphold democracy in society while itself remaining less than fully democratic. Again, I do not take issue with the fact that this must be the case to an extent; but it is inevitable that the populace will at times come to view certain government actions as hypocritical in this regard. Therefore, if it is feasible to make the government more democratic while still upholding the rule of law, due process, and sound reason, I believe such measures are desirable. Specifically, I believe the process by which our nation elects its president is such an area.<br /><br />I don't pretend that such a measure would be undertaken without some risk and controversy, but democray has always been risky business. Your comment that "next to tyranny, democracy is the worst form of government" brought to my mind another quote:<br />"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." -- Sir Winston Churchill<br /><br />By the way, where can I find your blog? I would very much like to visit it.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-76899116533190156722008-01-22T19:05:00.000-08:002008-01-22T19:12:03.145-08:00Forum PostingIn response to <em>Constitutional Proposals (Presidential Election), </em><a href="http://ahpatriot.blogspot.com/">hercules mulligan</a> writes:<br /><br />This whole issue of democracy and the Constitution is a very intriguing one indeed. As a result of my study of the Founding Fathers' writings, I have come of the opinion, as Alexander Hamilton did, that "democracy is our real disease." The Federalist Papers (not just the issues written by Hamilton) also carry this theme.<br /><br />Now, the Founders were not saying that we should not have a popular government in some sense, but that the excesses of popular rule should be controlled. In order to understand American government, and the US Constitution, we must understand that LAW is above the will of the rulers and the ruled. All too many contemporary historians have made the mistake of thinking that we need to make the Constitution more "democratic," when a glance at the Notes and Debates of the Constitutional Convention (available free online through my blog <a href="http://foundersbookshelf.blogspot.com/2007/09/shelf.html" rel="nofollow">The Founders' Bookshelf</a>) clearly shows that the Framers avoided making the federal government directly responsive to the populous of America.<br /><br />I wrote a post entitled <a href="http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/05/purpose-of-u-s-constitution.html" rel="nofollow">"The Purpose of the Constitution"</a> some time ago, to try to make this clear. I think that the Electoral College should remain a part of the Constitution for two reasons:1): the Framers deliberately instituted it to check what they called the "democratic excesses" of a country, and also to provide the way to give the state governments a say in the choosing of the next President as well.*2): to start tinkering with our Constitution, because people believe that "modern times" have changed our nation so much that we need to change our Constitution is dangerous, and I would almost say, treasonous. Because when the people of the land think that they can change the law of the land any time they please, they have already destroyed the foundation of a government of law, which is what America is supposed to be.<br />*I think that changing the Constitution to make it more "democratic" and to give the state governments less of a say in the federal government is dangerous, and is a result of our misunderstanding of what the federal govt. is for. The state governments govern the people, and the federal government governs the states to a limited degree, and oversees the affairs of the nation with foreign nations. The only reason that the people have any say in the federal government is so that the state governments do not go unchecked, or use the federal govt. to abuse the people.<br /><br />I wrote a post <a href="http://thefoundationforum.blogspot.com/2007/05/americas-form-of-government.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> on democracy and the Constitution, and discussed the 17th Amendment, which changed the way in which federal Senators were elected, and showing how such a change of the Constitution is illegal, and detrimental.This is a long comment (*sorry*), but it is my thoughts on this important subject.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-89453975900931424102008-01-18T20:30:00.000-08:002008-01-18T20:40:32.580-08:00Constitutional Proposals (or reflections upon reading Dahl)In his book, <em>How Democratic is the American Constitution?</em>, Robert Dahl points out several aspects of our constitution which he views as being “less than democratic”. Although a number of these aspects of the original document have since been changed through amendments, several defects remain. Briefly stated, the major elements, as Dahl notes them, concern the election of the president (the electoral college), unequal representation in the Senate, judicial power, and lack of either strong majoritarianism or proportional representation in the government. In a series of upcoming posts, I will outline what a U.S. Constitution which has been rectified to overcome these undemocratic elements could conceivably look like. <br /><br />My purpose in this is not to dishonor our noble Constitution, but, rather, to foster educated discussion of a democratic nature, as is fitting for citizens of a republic. Accordingly, all comments will be welcomed and, in most cases, published on the forum. I will begin with the issue of the Electoral College.<br /><br /><em>Presidential Election</em>. The electoral college is an institution which, I believe, has outlived its relevance. It appears to me that the college functioned as the founders intended it to for the election of Washington and possibly Adams. From 1800 on, developments have “turned the elaborate machinery of the electoral college into little more than a way of counting votes” (Dahl, 79). In addition, the several occasions in which a candidate has won the presidency without a majority (or even lost with one), seem to imply that the electoral college is not only undemocratic, but in a sense, illogical. For these reasons, I feel that the college should be abolished.<br /><br />Technology has advanced such that votes across the nation can now be counted (in most cases) with speed and accuracy. The president should therefore be democratically elected by popular vote. It is true that this will increase the possibility of voter fraud and corruption, but ensuring free and fair elections is a burden which every democratic society must carry. <br /><br />It may be pointed out that a popular nation-wide election would probably encourage more candidates to run for the presidential office, and thereby increase the risk of having no candidate receive a majority of the vote. In order to counter this possibility, the ballots could be organized by “preferential voting,” as Dahl makes mention. Under such a system of election, voters would cast their votes for several candidates listed on the ballot in order of their preference. In the case of an election in which no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest primary votes would be dropped, and the secondary votes from those ballots would be allotted to the respective candidate. This process would continue until a candidate has received a majority.<br /><br />It may also be countered that, given the political climate of the nation at present, in which several elections have been extremely close, contested elections will be a problem, prompting endless nation-wide recounts. In order to avoid this, a time-table could be set, limiting recounts to a maximum of a few days immediately following an election. If a clear victor still fails to emerge, the election would go, as it does now, to the House of Representatives, but with one critical difference. Rather than each state being allotted a vote, each representative would cast a single vote. In this way, the national population would be more fairly represented (especially given the make-up of the House, which will be detailed later), and the President elected by a qualified deliberative body.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-65193151688149983232007-11-13T13:34:00.000-08:002007-11-13T13:37:08.454-08:00Forum PostingIn response to our current poll, <a href="http://ahpatriot.blogspot.com/">hercules mulligan</a> writes:<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-56367831845856221172007-09-02T20:11:00.000-07:002007-09-24T21:26:25.078-07:00Forum PostingIn response to <em>Poll Results</em>, <a href="http://ahpatriot.blogspot.com/">hercules mulligan </a>writes:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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:<br />"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<br /><br /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/08945335226579435368">Snake Hunters</a> adds:<br /><br />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<br /><br />See 'History' Post, July 4, 2006 <a href="http://www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com/">http://www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com/</a><br /><br /><a href="http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/">Our Founding Truth</a>:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-13912860023275869652007-08-30T18:20:00.001-07:002007-08-30T18:34:51.252-07:00Poll ResultsThe 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. <br /><br />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.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-55626079653329127142007-08-21T13:28:00.000-07:002007-08-26T16:29:56.534-07:00Forum PostingIn response to <em>The Necessary Spring,</em> <a href="http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/">Our Founding Truth</a> wrote:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />Rob Scot:<br /><br />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 <em>Federalist </em>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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">political</span> 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.<br /><br />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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">colleague</span> in order work productively with them, indeed to accomplish incredible things. This is not hypocrisy, but democracy. It is, however, rather a fine line.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/09359315762800176142">hercules mulligan</a>:<br /><br />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:<br /><br />It is true (as it is interesting) that Madison was greatly influenced by Jefferson, especially when Jefferson <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">returned</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Carrington</span> 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).<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Rob Scot:<br /><br />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 <em>Report on the Public Credit</em>, 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">sovereignty</span>. In the book <em>Founding Brothers, </em>Ellis writes,<br />" The term (consolidation) conveyed the political fear, so potent among the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Antifederalist</span> critics of the constitutional settlement of 1788, that the states would be <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">absorbed</span> 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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><a href="http://ourfoundingtruth.blogspot.com/">Our Founding Truth</a> writes:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-66305267982399815862007-08-15T21:26:00.000-07:002007-08-15T22:29:08.780-07:00The Necessary SpringAnyone 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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">connotations</span> 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 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">ol</span>' religious <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">virtue</span>, with all its trappings of morality, than many today would care to admit. In his Farewell Address, George Washington wrote, "<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Tis</span> 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<span style="font-size:100%;">,</span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"> "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."</span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"></span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;">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." </span><span style="font-size:100%;">James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," went further. Madison declared,</span><br /> "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."<br />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.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-9412763227539086252007-07-28T05:22:00.000-07:002007-07-28T05:32:32.106-07:00Forum PostingIn response to <em>The Central Bank as Responsible Guardian</em>, <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/09359315762800176142">hercules mulligan </a>writes:<br /><a name="comments-block"></a><br />Interesting post.<br /><p>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.</p>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!<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Rob Scot responds:<br /><br />Thanks for the comment.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-55887895277898476442007-07-26T08:40:00.000-07:002007-07-26T19:23:10.454-07:00The Central Bank as Responsible GuardianWhen 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-26903661879234833902007-07-19T10:58:00.000-07:002007-07-26T08:39:51.845-07:00Forum PostingIn response to <em>Theories of Democracy: Part IV </em>(an assessment of elitism), <a href="http://lazyonebenn.blogspot.com/">Snake Hunters</a> wrote:<br /><br />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!<br /><br />Rob Scot replies:<br /><br />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.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-89005611798596155112007-07-15T14:37:00.000-07:002007-07-15T14:39:05.994-07:00Theories of Democracy: ConclusionDemocratic 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.Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-72586135649913907742007-07-14T05:28:00.000-07:002007-07-14T09:23:44.027-07:00Theories of Democracy: Part IVThe final theory which will be here considered is <em>elitism</em>. 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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,<br /><br />"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)<br /><br />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).Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7921197330886755021.post-6439368672711090812007-07-11T16:37:00.000-07:002007-07-11T16:48:21.589-07:00Theories of Democracy: Part IIIWhen 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 <em>pluralism</em> are to be found.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).Rob Scothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04072843841380642362noreply@blogger.com0