Was James Madison Wrong?

Back in the summer of 1787, in sultry and cholera infested Philadelphia, our Founding Fathers hammered out a seven article document by which we Americans would govern ourselves. Key to its creation were a set of guiding principles woven deeply into this first-ever written constitution.  First, the Founders believed that the recently freed thirteen English colonies were in need of a stronger national government than was created under the Articles of Confederation.  However, that need was in direct opposition to their fear that consolidated political power might lead to an erosion of individual liberties.  That problem seemed to be solved when the basic powers of the new government: making law, executing the law, and adjudicating legal disputes, were isolated from each other by creating walls of separation between the organs of governmental power.  Then they went a step further, giving each separate function of government some direct control over the other two, the so-called checks and balances powers. Finally, the Founders made sure that this new government could not operate as had the English Crown, with absolute power, by limiting the powers of the new national government and forcing it to share power with the states.

A second philosophical principle incorporated into the American Constitution was the adoption of republicanism in both the executive and legislative branches of the new national government.  To a man, the Framers were as suspicious of direct democracy as they were of absolute monarchy. They felt strongly that the people should exercise some democratic controls over the processes of government, but they were equally sure that too much democracy would ultimately lead to "mobocracy."  As fearful as they were that a despotic king would surely trample the rights and liberties of the people he governed, they feared the same outcome would be the inevitable result of government by popular majorities.  Madison called this problem the "wrath of the majority" and warned his fellow representatives that in a democracy there would be no way to protect the rights of anyone in opposition to the popular will.  Since most of the men who participated in the Constitutional Convention were educated, and thus well versed in classical history, any reference to the fall of Athens was sufficient to dampen those who were pressing for more direct democratic control over the new government. So they opted for a national legislature composed of representatives, selected by the people and the states. Further, these representatives would be empowered to make law, regulate commerce, impose taxes, and even declare war, without first having to seek permission from their constituents. Thus a filter was created between lawmakers and the often volatile swings in public opinion. Deliberation, debate, and compromise would trump passion and emotion in the newly created American Congress.  Or so it was thought.

Finally, the Framers of the Constitution of the United States opted for winner-take-all elections, rather than a system that awarded proportional representation.  In Federalist 10, Madison warned that "factions" were the great enemy of republicanism.  Today that word is out of fashion, but political factions are still with us and still pose a threat to the system of government established in 1787.  We just know them by a different name, interest groups. To James Madison,  the most dangerous factions, or interest groups,  were political parties. He knew that parties and all other kinds of interest groups would proliferate in any free society, as the very nature of a free people is to join with other people who share like interests. But he argued that if such groups became too powerful they might be able to seize the organs of government and impose their own narrow values on the rest of the polity. To prevent that potential outcome, or so the Framers thought, American elections would only award those who received the most votes in each legislative district or state. Since there was no prize for coming in second or third, Madison felt that factious parties could only hope to win seats by compromising with other factions and forming large coalitions to win elections.  Thus, factions would exist, but no one faction could ever be strong enough take over the government. The end result would be elected officials who had to appeal to a wide variety of people and interests,and thus be moderate in their values and character.  Once in power, these moderate representatives would then be more likely to compromise with their fellow legislators in governing.

And guess what?  The system worked. . . well sort of. For many of our two hundred twenty one years of living under the Constitution, we have been free of the divisiveness of narrowly ideological factions, or parties, being able to come to power.  Instead we have seen the creation of two large political parties, void of dogmatic ideology, working to build voter consensus to win elections. And to that end, our two major parties were forced to back candidates who appealed to a wide range of ideologues, rather than finding ones who were exactly like them. For decades, the primary criticism of Democrats and Republicans was that neither party actually stood for, well. . . anything.  Exactly right, would say James Madison.  American-style democracy has remained relatively free of the factious rancor that has plagued most parliamentary systems that other countries adopted.  Just like in pre-World War II Europe, the United States saw the creation of extremist parties and interest groups, but here they could never muster enough votes claim legitimacy.  While the Fascists and Nazis were getting their feet in the doors in Europe, they were little more in America than quirky oddities.  Make no mistake, the United States is just as likely to spawn malevolent interest groups as are European democracies, but they can never win enough votes to actually contend for national power.  Thus they remain small, isolated by ideas or region, and for the most part, ineffective in their quest for power.

Every once in awhile extremists have actually seized control of one of our consensus-based major parties.  But that has always led to one of two outcomes: the party ceases to exist or, after losing a number of elections, the moderates in the party regain control. When the so-called High Federalists captured the Federalist party on the eve of the War of 1812, their extreme and even treasonous agenda drove their moderate supporters away and the party was never again able to compete at the national level. In 1860, the pro-slave extremists in the Democratic party guaranteed that the moderate candidate nominated by the Republicans, Abraham Lincoln, would win the presidential election.  It took over half a century for the Democrats to recover from that disaster.  Even when there is wide appeal for an ideological party, like the Populist Party in the 1890s, without a broad-based national electorate, they could not survive.  Ironically, many of their ideas ended up becoming part of the progressive agenda of the early 20th century and were enacted into law.  But unlike the Populists, who never could become more than an economic reform movement of Midwestern farmers, the progressives reached out to the rising American middle class and ended up supporting candidates and issues within both major parties.  From 1904 to 1920, progressive Republicans and Democrats elected a majority of state  and national legislators and executives.

So what then is the point?  Since  1980, when Ronald Reagan opened his presidential campaign in Mississippi making a pre-planned states rights speech to woo the remaining white separatist Democrats to become Republicans, the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and General Eisenhower has been moving further and further to the far right of our political spectrum.  Add to that the modern reality of how much it costs to run an election campaign, and the race to the far right has accelerated even more.  Meanwhile, the Democrats have been trying to find a way to capture the political middle, which explains why President Obama has had such a hard time keeping his own party behind his healthcare agenda. The consensus model, as designed by James Madison and his fellow constitutional authors, was never supposed to be achieved by monolithic and lock-step legislature, but rather through the rough and tumble exchange of ideas and compromises that finally emerge as a viable piece of legislation.  Unfortunately, the modern Republican model of ideological uniformity is not suited to that design at all.  Instead, the party of Lincoln has morphed into an American version of one of those fringe parties that have come and gone over the years.

The further to the right the Republicans go, the more they will continue to alienate the political center that has always run this country.  They almost did themselves in back in 1964 when they allowed Barry Goldwater to hijack the mainstream GOP from the right.  But after that crushing loss to Lyndon Johnson they returned to their centrist values and bounced back. Remember it was Richard Nixon, that crazy liberal socialist, who tried to get a healthcare package much like what we now have through the Congress in 1970.  Today, with the crazies on Fox News and talk radio setting the agenda, Republicans are again heading toward the political trash heap.  Hey, the Democrats had their mental breakdown once too.  In 1972, the party of FDR ran too far to the left and nominated George McGovern who was soundly defeated by Richard Nixon.  But since then, the Democrats have been moving steadily to the center while the Republicans have decided to keep flowing to the right. One can only wonder how much longer centrist Republicans will stand for this?

My guess is that it will not be very long. Back in 1814, the once strong Federalists committed suicide when they threatened secession from the Union.  That mistake led to a fairly long period of one party rule in America. We are now hearing that same rhetoric from the right wing Republican governor of Texas.  One can only survive as the "Party of No" for so long. But for now the Republicans seem content to continue going after a larger and larger share of an ever diminishing and extremist portion of our society.  When a party is down to celebrating the likes of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck as its cadre of intellectual and spiritual leaders, it has traded political ideas for demagogues.  So I guess it may be time to tell the Federalists, Know Nothings, Free Soilers, Anti-Masonics, Populists, Bull Moosers, Dixiecrats, Peace and Freedomers, and American Independents to start making space for the Republicans.  After all, even in Texas there is room in the history books for one more addition on the page of failed parties.

I Miss Chairman Mao!

Without any actual documentation, Julius Caesar was reported to have said, "give them bread and games," in response to one of his aid's fears that the Roman people would not stand for his planned dissolution of the Roman Republic.  Whether or not he actually uttered those words, there is no doubt that Caesar was successful in achieving dictatorial power and forever destroying republicanism in Rome. And he did institute a series of laws providing public food assistance for the plebeian class as well as presiding over an increase in the number of government hosted public spectacles.  Looking at the economic miracle that is the People's Republic of China, one can only surmise that the current communist political elite, despite their rhetoric demanding avoidance all exposure to the decadence of western thought, may have modeled their hybrid national economic model on the Roman Empire.

Oh if Chairman Mao could see them now!  Remember back when the images coming out of China consisted of a sea of humanity all wearing the same dark blue parkas, waving copies of the little red book, and hoisting signs with wonderful slogans like, "Death to the running dog lackeys of imperialist war mongers," and "Death to the corporate stooges of the decadent bourgeois elite?" Back then, the only glimpse of life in China came to us in snippets of state controlled propaganda film of small children singing patriotic songs celebrating the life of Mao, or wave after wave of Red Army soldiers marching in perfect order with bayonetted rifles glistening in the sun.  For those of you too young to remember this, you have probably seen it, albeit in a scaled down version, coming out of Kim Jung Il's North Korea.  How funny is it that so much of American foreign policy, as well as financial resources, was directed at protecting us from Chinese hordes of the Cold War years? And now, when China poses a real threat to our national security, we are bending over backwards to aid them in their quest to dominate the world economies.

Beyond the nonsensical and paranoid rhetoric of the 50s and 60s, we were told that communism would ultimately fail in both China and the Soviet Union, because state controlled economies could not succeed.  Further, the current wisdom of the day preached, capitalism and consumer values would eventually take hold, inevitably leading to democratic political institutions. There was just no way that free markets could be compatible with totalitarian political systems, so we were told.

So let's see. . . the USSR, which stubbornly held to its failing model of a collectivist economy within the confines of a dictatorial state, finally did itself in in the late 1980s.  With all due respect to the Gipper, what killed off the USSR was its inability to deliver consumer goods to its growingly acquisitive population.  Levi Strauss and his denim blue jeans had more to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union, than the threat of an unrealistic nuclear weapons shield around the United States.  Reagan's "Star Wars" anti-missile proposals were aptly named, as only a politician reared in Hollywood would believe that such a system was even remotely possible.  Instead, the average Soviet citizen found himself exposed to the economic opulence available in the free west, and the allure of endless five year plans and collective farms was no longer capable of moving the masses to strive on for the workers' society.  In a few brief months in 1989, Soviet-style communism died in an almost bloodless revolt.  The USSR disappeared, and Russia was born. Gucci had replaced the Gulag!

Watching all this with great interest were the Communist Chinese. As China was pressing, like the Soviet Union once had, to become a legitimate player on the world scene, there must have been some trepidation on the part of the Central Committee concerning contamination of their Revolution by western economic values.  For decades, the Chinese, like Kim's North Korea, had brutally enforced a ban on all outside contact.  That worked really well in preserving Chairman Mao's social and political model, but if China was going to grow economically, some changes were going to have to be adopted. Who could have guessed that the answer would be found in marrying Karl Marx to Adam Smith?

The Communist hierarchy in China bet their lives that they could create a successful economic model by dumping a rigidly enforced command economy and embracing a hyper-capitalist one instead.  With breathtaking speed, the Chinese trashed all their five year plans and started building shopping malls.  Capitalism was unleashed and the Chinese people embraced it with open arms.  Here in the West, this decision was greeted with enthusiasm and celebration. The other great communist power was now admitting that scientific socialism did not actually work, and soon, as in Russia, the Chinese people would be demanding democratic political changes too.  After all, as the current wisdom suggested, free enterprise must lead to free politics, right?  Wrong!

Remember Tiananmen Square in 1989?  Remember Tank Man? That was going to be the spark that would bring down communism in China, like Boris Yeltsin's followers did in Moscow.  But when the smoke cleared, the commies were still in power and the young Chinese revolutionaries were running for their lives.  Instead of igniting a nation-wide revolt, the Tiananmen Square event angered the new Chinese middle class because they could not go shopping that day.  Hey, democracy might be nice, but BMWs and Mocha Lattes were, well, better. In less than five years, not one of those puffy quilted blue Maoist jackets could be seen anywhere, and all those red star festooned caps were gone too. The big gamble paid off, and continues to pay off.

So here we are twenty one years later, deeply in debt to the billionaires in China who bank roll our national deficit.  Without firing a shot in anger, China has partnered with the likes of Walmart and other big box retailers to destroy main street USA.  The largest internet company in the world, whose motto is some blather about doing good, is not only doing business with the world's most repressive regime, but actually helping it track down its domestic dissidents. And in 2008 we turned a blind eye to the brutal crackdown on earthquake survivors in China so we would not offend the Chinese government during the Summer Olympics.  Hey America, guess what?  It looks like they won.  The inheritors of Chairman Mao's 1949 Revolution discovered that their most potent weapon was not a stockpile of nuclear weapons, but rather a fat checkbook.  They didn't have to blow us up, they simply bought us.  And now if they want any concessions from the US government, they don't need to rattle any sabers, like the Soviets used to, they just suggest that they might not want to buy anymore of our Treasury bonds.

What do you know, capitalism and brutal dictatorships work really well together.  If only Marie Antoinette had actually had some cake to give to the masses, the French might still have a king!