Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy: Part Thirteen

by Dave Seng
John Jay 1745 – 1829

It is important to remember, however, that America is a product of the Enlightenment. Madison, Jay, Hamilton, and Washington were all (some more, some less) men of their times. The Enlightenment was a philosophical period of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, characterized by belief in the power of human reason and the perfectibility of mankind. There are several ideas that were emphasized during the Enlightenment but the primary ones are – all humans are by nature rational and inherently good and the idea of progress and whatever is new is intrinsically better than anything that has existed before. Also, a strong anti-authoritarianism existed among Enlightenment thinkers and custom, tradition, and especially religion have little value due to their irrational and superstitious nature. Some of the founders of America had a strong sense that America would be a source of progress and enlightenment to the rest of the world. Progress and democracy were now the rulers of a new world and provided the best hope for the world – the days of kings, lords, and nobles were clearly seen as over. Even Abraham Lincoln said that America “was the last best hope of mankind.” America would eventually see the rise of the Progressive Party.1 However, the twentieth century saw the disintegration of Enlightenment and Modernist ideas with the advent of two world wars. Progress seemed to be incredibly elusive. The twentieth century experienced the rise of postmodernism.

Postmodernism is a contemporary interdisciplinary movement that stresses the wholistic, pragmatic, historically relative, character of reality and knowledge.2 Postmodernism in some respects contains serious problems. Nonetheless, it has also clearly shown the errors of the Enlightenment and Modern eras.3 The perfectibility of mankind is no longer seen as inevitable. That which is new is no longer seen as better. People are now more likely to question a blind allegiance to progress. Postmodernism now provides some interesting possibilities for democracy and this is where the Greeks can help us. Since that which is new is no longer seen as valid, we can once again learn from the wisdom of the past. Because, in some ways, the Enlightenment project of progress and perfectibility failed, we can once again listen to the Greeks who would remind us of the unchanging nature of mankind. This nature is not always inherently good or perfectible. We, tragically, and concretely live in a world of absolutes and social programs that seek the utopian perfection of humanity are sorely disappointing. Reality (including political reality) has its own intractable way of being. This is why Plato’s utopian project failed when he tried to implement it in Syracuse. There is a certain logic and rhythm to human existence that transcends the rational and empirical. Human beings do not think or act in strict Enlightenment or rationalist categories. Enlightenment and Modernist theories of human nature were failures. The Greeks would remind us that we are all moved by the same desires, appetites, and impulses. Human nature is always guided by honor, status, a desire for recognition, and plagued by envy and jealousy. Mankind would be quite crass and uncouth without the thin veneer of civilization based on law, culture, tradition, and religion. Further, the Greeks would cause us to doubt any self-acclaimed theorist that would claim to have overcome human nature. The Athenians held no illusions of what it means to be human but they did believe in the equality of human beings and the wisdom of careful reflection and debate when it comes to democratic self-rule. The Athenians were aware of the innate human desire to grasp for more than it ought and many were ostracized or exiled whenever they sought more political power than one should have. If the Athenians feared anything, they feared tyranny in all its forms. The Athenians were not strictly concerned with the economy either, for they were aware of other cultures that had more wealth such as the Persians. But the Athenians understood that law and civic virtue supplied their freedom.

The Greeks provide us with ways to think about our current American democratic situation. It is hard to assess the contemporary American political situation as democratic. I can only give a few examples here of American democratic failure but there are many more. Whenever a representative places himself or herself above the law this person is functioning in an undemocratic manner. The same is true for political parties. Whenever one party dominates the political scene, the democratic process shuts down. The nomination process in America is equally nondemocratic, and parties are served instead of the people.

Today, candidates are chosen based on their popularity, not their merit or qualifications. In fact, political races today are a little more than publicity contests. A law enacted in Oregon in 1954 states that only candidates recognized by the national news media will be allowed on the ballots. This makes the media the nominators instead of the people. And media may, or may not, allow third parties representation. It is unclear how the fairness doctrine will accommodate third parties because it is based on a two-party framework. Since the 1920’s the media has become a major force in determining the contours of American politics often in the form of entertainment and at the expense of content and thoughtful debate. The media is more capable of shaping a candidate’s “image” rather than his or her ideas. Mass communication itself is not the problem, however, or at least, not the only one. Media as a technology and product of human beings will always bring with it the virtues and vices of human beings. Humans bring to the media the problems of the human condition itself. In America, the communication industry is largely unreflective and thoughtless because as a whole people are not given over to reflecting on the important issues of the day. But it must also be remembered that populism is not democracy.

In the next post, we will reflect on how America has shifted from a republic, to democracy, to populism, and finally to a thinly veiled constitutional bureaucracy.

1 Of course, the Progressive Party was a result of modernity but the Enlightenment provided the foundation of modernity and shared the same concerns.

2 Miller, 589.

3 Postmodernism can be taken too far. But some of its critiques of the Enlightenment and Modernity are valid.

Consensual Government, Liberal Arts

Democracy: What Have We Learned?

by Dave Seng

The roots of our being reach further and deeper into history than we are usually aware. – William Barrett, The Illusion of Technique.

I am going to take a quick break from our series on democracy to try to summarize what we have learned so far regarding a properly understood conception of democracy. I will return to our discussion of the American founding and develop more recent historical concerns soon.

So … what have we learned so far about genuine collective self-government? The ancient idea of government by the consent of citizens has been scorned, cheered, ridiculed, debated, and argued for and against by most of the greatest minds in the Western intellectual tradition. Within the idea of democracy, we see many of the virtues and vices of Western civilization itself. This should not be surprising because as human beings we carry over into our institutions, technology, and the societies we build, the deepest and most perplexing trait of human nature itself—that our efforts are always ineradicably a mixture of good and evil. This is the human paradox. Nonetheless, due to these seemingly contradictory qualities in human nature, history has shown that for a democracy to exist at all, important characteristics need to be in place such as the free exchange of ideas, the rule of law, public audit and accountability, discussion, debate, economic and individual freedom, dissent, and a constructive consensus among people for the purpose of building a government which serves the people. These ideals are central and inherent to the classical and Western idea of democracy. On the other hand, democracy can easily devolve into mob rule, partisan politics, and a mere clash of wills—the most illiberal aspects of our current political climate. Hopefully, this series has helped us understand human nature, our inherent need to understand why something is the way its, and a respect for our shared cultural heritage.

What else have we learned? History provides a helpful guide for understanding human nature. In fact, history is all we have to go on since it is impossible to study the future. More importantly, we study history because it gives us deeper insight into who we are as human beings and civilization generally. In a very real sense, it is memory that makes us who we are. Memories shape us—and our families, communities, and culture. This is why our cultural institutions preserve our history, learning, and collective memory. And this is true on the individual level. Anyone who has seen a loved one decline due to dementia, Alzheimer’s, or amnesia knows that the loss of memory is a loss of something deeply human and valuable. Without memory, an individual is a ruined imitation of what they once where. And the same is true for societies. Cultural amnesia can be devastating to a society. I believe this was one reason Pericles delivered his funeral oration. The historian Wilfred McClay put it this way, “Historical consciousness is to civilized society what memory is to individual identity. Without memory, and the stories within which memories are held suspended, one cannot say who or what one is; one cannot learn to use language, pass on knowledge, raise children, establish rules of conduct, or even dwell in society, let alone engage in science” (12).

We study history because it is fundamental to our nature as human beings and through such a study we realize the greatness and wretchedness of the human paradox. At the same time we have a drive for understanding and learning. We seem to have a natural tendency and desire to know why something is the case. We also seem to have an intrinsic desire to tell stories, pass down traditions, and to explore why or how something came to be.

History can be instructive if we choose to listen to it. Memory can be a powerful teacher. I believe that telling the story of the intellectual development of democracy will benefit everyone. Thucydides reminds his readers of the Athenian delegation that tried to resolve tensions between the Corinthians, Spartans, and Athenians prior to the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War. The Athenians desired to “call attention to the great power of Athens, and to refresh the memory of the old and enlighten the ignorance of the young, from a notion that their words might have the effect of inducing them to prefer tranquility to war” (367). Words and stories have a powerful impact on a society. When memory fades or cultural Alzheimer’s sets in, a civilization becomes empty and incapacitated. History is much more than dates and events, it is about the narratives and ideas that men and women have struggled with in an existential attempt to understand the human paradox.

Works Cited:

McClay, Wilfred. A Student’s Guide to U.S. History. ISI Books, 2000.

Thucydides. The History of The Peloponnesian War, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 5, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1996.

Here are a few other helpful guides on this topic:

Kagan, Donald. Pericles of Athens And The Birth of Democracy, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991.

Lukacs, John. Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.

Richard, Carl. The Founders and the Classics: Greece, Rome, and the American Enlightenment. Harvard University Press, 1995.

Woodruff, Paul. First Democracy: The Challenge of An Ancient Idea. New York: Oxford University Press.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Twelve

by Dave Seng

Part eleven can be found here.

Republics historically have had more success against tyranny. This is where James Madison makes a distinction between a democracy and a republic. “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”1 Madison clearly argues for a republican form of government and believes it is the best form of rule to protect against the rise of factions. Madison believes in two advantages of a republican form of government. The first is in the representation of the citizens, and the second is the sheer size of large republics as a deterrent to factions. Madison believes that a body of elected representatives will actually serve as a barrier and protection to factious elements in the population. He writes,

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves. 2

Madison believes a body of elected citizens would wisely protect the union in a better manner than the people themselves could. This could only work, however, if these elected citizens were well educated in civic virtue, and believed in the institutions they were protecting. Elected officials that do not have a sense of civic responsibility, respect the rule of law, or in Madison’s words “comprehend and pursue great and national objects” do little for the common good. Furthermore, Madison is concerned with national and federal concerns rather than local and state issues. He wants to leave particular and local issues up to the states and strike a balance between national and state concerns. Madison believes that giving people more power at the local level will be better for the public good in general.

James Madison wanted a republican solution to republican problems. He is aware of the problems inherent to democracy. He believes a large republic offers the best solution to the problem of factions. In his view, a small republic with few representatives will be easily corrupted by factious elements. On the other hand, a body of elected officials that was too large would only offer “the confusion of a multitude.” Madison understands that the body of elected representatives ought to be too big to bribe (or, at least not all of them at once). Madison argues for a mean between a body of elected officials that is neither too small nor too big. However, a larger republic will solve the problems found in smaller republics. He believes the larger the republic, the more likely it will be to find virtuous citizens as representatives. And he thinks that in a large republic, factions would be less likely to succeed. Madison explains,

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former rather than the latter. … Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater number variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other. 3

In other words, Madison believes that by extending the republic to the many rather than the few, collusion between factious parties will be deterred. He concludes by asking several fascinating questions.

Hence, it clearly appears that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic – is enjoyed by the Union over the states composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and to schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union increase this security? Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.4

Madison’s questions and solutions offer many points for reflection. First, in other points of his writing and in Federalist Number 10, Madison argues for proportional representation. In Madison’s understanding the Union would not be the two-party system now in place but a multiparty arrangement that is proportionally represented according to the citizenry. Currently, it is very hard for third-party political candidates to even get on a ballot. Many people with views not sympathetic to either party are simply not represented and opt out of the political process altogether. Further, laws exist to keep third-party representation off ballots. In a proportional multiparty system, parties will be forced to work together for the common good. Harmony will have to be sought above political gain. Coalitions will have to work together rather than a tyranny of one party. Madison was clearly afraid of the tyranny of one party over others. That is clearly why he tells us that a proportional government would protect against “the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest?” When one party boasts of passing legislation without any input from the opposing party, that party is clearly acting in a tyrannical and undemocratic manner. However, a government with real proportional representation would depend on a genuine and authentic political conversation throughout the parties represented and at all levels. It would require a national conversation and it would also necessitate that the current parties relinquish their power (which is unlikely). Madison is also aware that an increase in the variety of parties represented would add to the increase of security of the nation. When people are truly represented factions will be discouraged. People will be given a voice in their government and legitimate concerns can be addressed.

1 Ibid.

2 Ibid., 52.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid., 53.

Consensual Government, Intellectual History, Liberal Arts

On Democracy, Part Eleven

by Dave Seng

Part ten can be found here.

In this post I examine the classical influence on the founding of America and the vision of James Madison.

Now we must jump many years to the founding of the American republic. It is not surprising to find that the founders of America were influenced by classical thought – and all the values of the Western intellectual and political tradition can be seen in the American State Papers and Federalist Papers, including debate, dissent, civic virtue, and the free exchange of ideas. The classical influence of early America can be discovered from the works they read, the architecture they built, and the documents they wrote. One obvious piece of evidence rests in the fact that the authors of the Federalist Papers wrote under the names of significant Roman leaders. Furthermore, many of the founders such as John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, were well versed in the classics and read Latin.

In America, constitutional government evolved from the idea of constitutional monarchy found in Europe. Although the founders envisioned a republic and not a democracy (they were very cautious of an extreme democracy), America finally became a popular democracy in 1828 with the election of Andrew Jackson. Nonetheless, at the beginning of American Republicanism was the conviction that consensual rule was possible and that governments existed to protect citizen’s natural rights and to promote the common good of all people.1 This is the idea of classical liberalism and has become the social-political theory that stresses freedom from undue governmental interference and views the state as the guarantor of the basic liberties and rights of the individual. This is basically a classical idea; however, a thinker like Aristotle would see a closer relationship between the individual and the state.

In the early days of the American republic, there was much debate about the constitution itself. The parties were divided between those who wanted a stronger national government, the federalists, and those who wanted more sovereignty among the individual states – the antifederalists. The friends of the Constitution (the federalists) had the advantage of superior intellectual firepower. Among the federalists were the two most eminent men in America at the time, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.2 Washington himself declared that the choice lay between the Constitution and disunion. Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay, under the joint pseudonym “Publius,” wrote a long series of newspaper essays explaining and extolling the new document.3 These essays were later published in book form and are considered the greatest intellectual defense of the Constitution by some of the early Republic’s greatest thinkers.

For example, James Madison, one of the writers of the Federalist Papers, was very concerned about the role of human nature and the propensity for people to divide into factions. For Madison, factions are different than regular political parties. He defines a faction as, “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”4 In other words, factions are those groups which will seek there own power illegitimately and disregard the rights of others in the process. Factions do not regard the democratic principle of equality as an important ideal nor understand or value the idea that in a democracy harmony is essential. People have to be united – a government for the people and by the people must first of all be supported by the people and truly believed in if it is going to work. Madison understands the corrosive effects of factions on a consensual government. Nonetheless, it seems to be part of human nature to divide into factions as soon as individuals are given the freedom to do so. Madison was concerned about how to keep a faction from becoming a tyranny on one hand and how to maintain fair representation on the other. But Madison understood that factions would be a problem to any liberal republic because it is so basic to the human instinct,

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions and many other points as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment of different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their most violent conflicts.5

Madison understands that factions are a part of any liberal society. He is also aware that there are only two solutions to the problem of factions. The first is to eliminate the cause of factions. But this would require the elimination of liberty, an unacceptable option. The other is to give every citizen the same interests, passions, and opinions – and this option is clearly impossible. Madison knows there will always be independent thinkers. So the third option for Madison is to control the effects of factions. Madison believes the best possibility for this rests in the rule of law and to allow factions a voice in their own government.6 He explains, “The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.”7 Much like Aristotle, Madison understands the value of allowing differing parties a voice in their own government functioning under legitimate legal protection and constraints (consensual government always seeks a check on majority rule to ensure the rights of the minority). Of course, when factions are in the minority they are less likely to prevail in their evil intentions. Madison’s concern rests in what could happen if a faction became a majority. Madison concludes that a pure democracy can not protect itself from this phenomenon. “From this view of the subject it may be concluded that pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.”8 He goes on to explain,

A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.9

For Madison then, a pure democracy is a government in which every citizen participates, is small in size, and contains no check on majority rule. It is unclear, however, if any such government has existed because the ancient Athenians functioned under the rule of law, and was regulated by assembly, councils, and archons. Rome itself transformed from a republic (also under the rule of law) to an empire without becoming a direct democracy. Nonetheless, Athens was close to being a direct democracy and Thucydides does point out the mob mentality of the Athenians after the death of Pericles. But the point that a democracy can become a tyranny is a legitimate concern, the French revolution being the primary example. The ancient Greek political thinkers were all aware of the tyranny of the majority. And there was nothing more they hated than tyranny.

Next time, I will examine the particular definition of republic held by Madison.

1 Goodwin, Gerald, Richard Current, Paula A. Franklin. A History of the United States. 2nd ed. (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1985), 119.

2 Ibid., 131.

3 Ibid.

4 The Federalist, Great Books Of The Western World, Vol. 43, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), 50.

5 Ibid.

6 Hamilton believes most factions arise from differences between the propertied and non-propertied classes.

7 Ibid., 50.

8 Ibid. 51.

9 Ibid.