There was an editorial in this morning's paper lamenting the aristocratic nature of the Senate and the rules and procedures that shield that institution from the electorate. The issue that seemed to be irritating the author this morning was how the public is shut out of the process of choosing replacements for those senators who leave their seats during the course of their terms. The fact that governors choose the replacement rather than an election being called, strikes the author of the editorial as "undemocratic." I have news for that author, not only is it "undemocratic", it is supposed to be. In fact, the senate itself was supposed to be undemocratic.
Under the Constitution, a profoundly undemocratic document, three interests were to be represented by the new government in Washington: the people, the states, and the nation. It was the job of the president to represent the nation. The presidency was never intended to be a "democratic" institution. Indeed, to this day the president is not elected by the public, but by the electoral college. Senators, up until the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, were elected by state legislatures, not the people. This was because the job of the senate was to represent the states; not the people of the states, but the states. It was only the House of Representatives that existed to represent the people - which is why it holds the preponderance of legislative power. Because it was the job of senators to represent the states, it was left to the governors of the states (elected by the people of those states) to fill any vacancies in the senate that might occur.
The reason for the numerous barriers to popular rule placed in the Constitution is that the Founders were men that knew history. The Founders knew that every democracy that had ever existed, from the ancient Greeks to the Italian city states, had ended in tyranny and disaster. Being educated men, they knew there was little reason to believe democracy would do any better here in the United States than it had done elsewhere. Therefore, they decided to apply the lessons they had learned to create a republic - a form of government that had a much better track record in history. A republic differs from a democracy in that power rests in the hands of those appointed by the public, rather than the public itself. The distance between the public and the government provided by a republic allows a greater measure of objectivity by the government in assessing and addressing the needs of society and buffers it against the passions and desires of the electorate. The lessons the Founders had learned they sought to apply in the Constitution. The Constitution does simply protect the people from government, it also protects the government from the people. Government can be bended to serve interests that may, or may not be, in the interests of the public. A government that seizes your property, restricts your liberties, and levies taxes is no less onerous simply because it is a popularly elected government. Many of the provisions established to limit the scope and authority of government were enacted with an eye towards preventing government from being co-opted by powerful interests and factions.
The only reason we had to believe that we would not suffer the fate that befell earlier democracies is the one thing we have that they didn't: a constitution. If the Constitution finally falls before the populist onslaught, the one thing that was designed to keep us from falling into tyranny and license will be gone, and with it, the hope that we will not suffer the fate of every other democracy. Too many Americans and, more disturbingly, their representatives, often seem surprised, or worse, indignant at what is written in the Constitution. I fear if I hear one more college student or editorialist rail against a constitutional provision because they believe they know more than Jefferson and Hamilton did, I will spit.
No comments:
Post a Comment