"But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself" (Publius, Federalist Number 51, Vol. 43, p. 163).
If government reflects our nature, what does that say about us? And does the continuation of our system of government require any subordination of our will to the public good? Or, can the system be set up in such a way through checks and balances to counteract ambition with ambition?
Some scholars such as J.G.A. Pocock and Gordon Wood have argued that the Founders abandoned the idea of virtue as a prerequisite to republican government. In his The Creation of the American Republic, 1776 - 1787, Wood argued that it was the Founders' position that "America would remain free not because of any quality in its citizens of spartan self-sacrifice to some nebulous public good, but in the last analysis because of the concern each individual would have in his own self-interest and personal freedom" (Wood 612). Wood acknowledged that the Founders continued to publicly promote virtue. But that the necessary preconditions for a virtuous citizenry did not exist.
Conversely, the late Richard Vetterli and Gary Bryner argued in their book In Search of the Republic that the Founding Fathers believed that "virtue" was a necessary condition of self government. "But of one thing they [the Founders] appear to have been certain: a citizenry lacking in virtue was not capable of sustaining a democratic republic" (Vetterli and Bryner 2). Moreover, they argued that "the Founders attempted to, and were ultimately successful, in responding to both traditions. They believed that republican virtue and liberal individualism -- self interest, properly understood -- are compatible and interdependent" (Vetterli and Bryner 8, emphasis in original).
Neither Hamilton nor Jefferson listed "virtue" per se as one of the first principles of republican government. In Federalist, No. 31, Hamilton listed his "primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasonings must depend." The maxims that related in his mind to ethics and politics included "that there cannot be an effect without a cause; that the means ought to be proportioned to the end; that every power ought to be commensurate with its object; that there ought to be no limitation of a power destined to effect a purpose which is itself incapable of limitation" (Vol. 43, p. 103). While virtue is not expressly listed, some of these are value statements ("oughts") that arguably require some restraint for implementation.
Jefferson's "self-evident" truths do not necessarily comport with Hamilton's. Hamilton never mentioned the "truths" in the Federalist "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness" (Declaration of Independence, Vol. 43, p. 1). Perhaps Hamilton didn't believe that these things are self-evident or even "true."
Hamilton and Jefferson were different men with different backgrounds and values. This is the case with each individual we collectively refer to as the "Founders" as well as our elected officials representing us today. Over the past two-hundred thirty years, our nation has managed (with the exception of the Civil War, the occasional riot, and awful inequality towards racial minorities and women) to overcome serious differences through the passage of laws by the legislative branch, the implementation of those laws by the executive branch, and the resolution of most disputes through the judiciary.
I think the bottom line is that the Founders figured out that most people act in their own best interest notwithstanding what is in the nation's best interest. And so they devised a system that blunted ambition with ambition. They created due process to make sure that similarly situated people are treated similarly. They created separation of powers to ensure that no branch of government could overwhelm another branch of government. They provided for the freedom of the press to ensure that government action is generally transparent. They created a legal system that punished bad behavior so that it would be in everyone's best interest to obey the law. All these checks and balances presuppose that people will take what they can unless and until it is not in their best interest to do so.
Virtuous and fair conduct in the affairs of government is ideal and aspirational. And many elected officials, public servants, soldiers, and citizens put the needs of the country ahead of their own. But if we replaced checks and balances with a greater reliance on public virtue, I doubt it would stand up much longer. Human nature includes elements of self-restraint and self-interest. But the latter usually overwhelms the former.
In sum, many of the Founders discovered that "[t]he republics of antiquity had failed because they had 'attempted to force the human character into distorted shapes.' The American republics, on the other hand, ... were built upon the realities of human nature. They were free and responsive to the people, framed so as to give 'fair play' to the actions of human nature, however unvirtuous" (Wood 611, quoting William Vans Murray, Political Sketches from 1787). Looking back, while there are exceptions, our country has not been a beacon of virtue over the past two-hundred and thirty years. And yet it survives and flourishes. We have survived wars, civil war, racial and gender inequality, massive cultural and social differences, scandals at the highest levels of government down to local governments, and even Donald Trump (at least so far)! President Trump may end up putting this issue to the ultimate test.
Under the system put in place by the Founders, there are incentives for people to act with virtue. But only because it is in their own best interest to do so. That our republic has survived over the past two-hundred and thirty years is a testament to the genius of our Founders. They devised a system of government that married the ambitions of the individual parts with the good of the whole. It's messy and imperfect, but it works.
No comments:
Post a Comment