The unanticipated strength of anger and resentment unleashed by the current presidential campaign raise ancient questions about the character of American democracy. The questions may seem new, but they go back to the nation's beginnings.
As imagined by the Founding Fathers, democracy depends on an informed and educated electorate, willing and able to make reasoned, careful judgments about the character and capability of the people they choose to represent their and the nation's best interests. That electorate was likely a fantasy, one that never existed in their time, or ours. But it was the theoretical foundation of the system of government they fashioned.
The founders were not enthusiastic about democracy. Most of them shared to some degree Hamilton's belief that the common mass of people were incapable of the wisdom and judgment needed to choose their governors. That's why they favored a republican form of government, one in which the electorate delegate the responsibility of governing to a few. To this end, they erected several barriers between the electorate and their governors. The Electoral College is perhaps the best known of these. But they also provided that the two-chamber legislature they established, Congress, should have disparate powers. The Senate they designed to be more sophisticated than the House. Its members were to be elected not by popular vote, but by the state legislatures, whose members already would have been culled from the general populace. And there would be but two per state, who would represent the entire state. Moreover, they were elected for six-year terms, to be essentially immune from the electorate. And they have exclusive authority in matters considered critical to national security, namely, ratification of treaties, and advise and consent to executive nominations; the House has no role in those decisions.
There were many in the country at the time who opposed this frame of government, who found it disrespectful of the general electorate, and who thought it a prescription for corrupt government, for the gathering of the power and wealth of the nation into the hands of a few with the potential to manipulate an unsuspecting public for the benefit and privilege of the elite. These were called Anti-Federalists, though they were less organized than the label might imply.
The sentiment they represented was in fact somewhat manifest in the frame of government, in the U.S. Constitution. It provides that the general populace should elect members of the House, and they should represent districts within the state, not the whole state, and thus there should be more of them than senators. Moreover, they were to be elected once every two years, so as to stay more in touch with their constituencies, and to carry their interests more directly. To the House the founders also gave two exclusive powers: to originate money bills, and to impeach the president and other high officials.
Ratification of the Constitution over the months of 1787-88 was by no means assured, as these different views of how democracy should be structured were contested up and down the land. In the states that mattered most, the vote was very close: Massachusetts, 187-169; Virginia 87-79; New York, 30-27. As now, people were fundamentally divided over the character of the democracy they wanted.
Yet, set on its course, the frame of government chosen functioned reasonably well, if unevenly. It has managed to contain most of the nation's contentions over policy. But as everyone paying attention is acutely aware, distrust of the people governing within it is today at an all time high, though there have been few calls for elemental structural change, just demands for policy changes. There is widespread wrath and suspicion regarding the capability of the electoral elite to represent the people's interests. Many have suggested that the governing elite are too insulated and isolated to know and understand the sentiments of the general populace. Some commentators have echoed the founders' ancient fears about the capability of the electorate. Some of these have compared the current presidential campaign to the popular "reality" shows on television. And some analysts have voiced serious misgiving about the ability of the government to function at all.
The founders would find it all familiar, including the unease about the future.
Steve Haycox is professor emeritus of history at the University of Alaska Anchorage.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary@alaskadispatch.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@alaskadispatch.com or click here to submit via any web browser.