Almost every political philosopher I am aware of from Aristotle down through Montesquieu believed that a democracy/republic had to be small in size. Self-government required, among other things:
- A population where people know each other enough to trust each other to some degree.
- A population where people can have enough land to support themselves, but a geography that does not allow any one particular faction to have too much land, thus gaining too much of an advantage over their fellows.
- A relatively culturally homogeneous population that shares core values
The American experiment is unique in many ways, one of which being that Jefferson and Madison attempted to turn this reasoning on its head. They argued that
- Democracies/Republics floundered because of too much population concentration, not too little.
- These population concentrations gave way to passions and factionalism that could easily destroy liberty by trampling on the minority (cf. Madison’s brilliant Federalist #10).
- Hence, what Democracies/Republics need is not a small geography, but a large one. People need to spread out so that 1) All will be sure to have land, and 2) No one particular faction could concentrate its power enough to override the rights of minorities (hence, Jefferson’s impetus for his semi-Constitutional Louisiana Purchase).
Maybe necessity helped them invent these ideas, maybe it sprung direct out of their heads. Either way, with this reasoning Madison and Jefferson show their genius, confidence, and perhaps, their arrogance. I have wondered if one might not view the whole of American history through the lens of this question: Were Jefferson and Madison right or wrong?*
I expected Gary Gerstle’s Liberty and Coercion to take on the grand question of the thorny question of the interaction between liberty and power, and how sometimes “liberty” for oneself means power over others. Instead, he narrowed his focus and proceeded in a methodical way to show how over time the “police power” of the federal government grew. Gerstle disappointed me by never exploring the relationship of our founding ideals to this question. But at times his narrower focus allows him to make some incisive observations.
For example . . .
Many presidents and perhaps many Americans had a desire to act in some measure of good faith with Native Americans, but things never went right. Some might explain this via a grand clash of civilizations. Gerstle looks instead at the inherent dilemmas posed by our philosophic commitments. Our commitment to self-government limited the scope of federal government. No one, whether a Federalist, Anti-Federalist, Democratic/Republican or the like, believed that a large professional army went well with liberty. But with no money and no political will to even create agencies to establish firm borders and grant land titles, let alone enforce such borders militarily, various presidents found themselves giving in to the settlers “squatters rights.” We wanted to prevent the national government from having too much power to coerce, but without this power, settlers had the liberty and the power to coerce others.
Time and time again, our sheer size made the relationship between governmental power and self-government difficult.
A similar line of reasoning happened with non-WASP immigrants, be they Catholics from Ireland/southern Europe or Asians settling in the west. They did not have the same rights as others, but how could they? For communal self-government relied on shared religious and cultural beliefs and habits. If these immigrants did have these same values, they could possibly participate in the democracy. Gerstle shared Teddy Roosevelt’s fury and frustration with the treatment of Japanese migrants in the U.S. just as he was negotiating sensitive deals with Japan. But he had no ability to force local governments to do as he wished.
Here Gerstle misses an opportunity to connect our dilemmas with our founding ideology. American colonization began with the idea of transplanting certain distinct communities intact. But by the later 18th century Enlightenment ideas led to the bold “All men are created equal” mindset of the Declaration. Simultaneously, America had no real justification to exclude anyone from its shores, but neither could they practice local, autonomous, self-government if they did.
The history of political philosophy has its revenge–or at least makes itself known.
Of course slavery is the preeminent manifestation of this dilemma. On the one hand, I think most of the founders knew that slavery ran against their moral principles as a nation. But their political principle of limiting the power of national government meant granting a lot of autonomy to the states. The clash of these two propositions embedded the possibility of civil war into the fabric of our origins.
Gerstle cites one illuminating aspect of this problem that I had not heard of before. After Nat Turner’s rebellion many abolitionist presses mailed anti-slavery publications “free of charge” to the South. This infuriated President Jackson, who believed that such publications only sought to stir up more trouble. He asked for Congress to ban their mailing.
But southerner John C. Calhoun recognized that such a ban would not serve southern interests. They would gain in the short term but give away one of their core principles–the right of states to decide such questions. He advocated against the ban. But many states arrived at a solution by instructing local postal workers to simply not deliver this mail. This at best awkward compromise could only last so long, however much it tried to resolve federal and state issues.**
States were seen early on as the means by which well-ordered communities could be established. Thus, they had broad ranging police power. The constitution reflects this by enumerating the powers of the federal government and giving everything else to the states. Today the power of states is much weaker relative to even just a few generations ago.
This changed in stages.
The Industrial Revolution may have done more damage to the vision of the founders than any president or political party. It broke down local rural life and lumped most people together in the cities as one amorphous mass. Such conditions created a national state. Without any direct power to act, the government outsourced, deputizing local civic groups to undertake tasks related to civil order.
Whatever the successes such organizations had, they were destined for embarrassing failures. They discriminated against blacks and immigrants. They imprisoned without fair trials, and so on, all in the name of the Justice Department. They needed stopped, but the only way to do so involved finding a way to increase the power of the national government.
Over time the national government used various legal strategies mostly related to the 14th amendment and the commerce clause to achieve their aims. Perhaps the Industrial Revolution destroyed the possibility of self-government that our constitution depends on. Rather than create a new constitution, we sought to stretch certain enumerated powers far beyond their original purpose. Much hay has been made of the commerce clause, for example, which many conservatives lament. However, our military and national defense (an issue dear to many conservatives) has also assumed a shape utterly unrecognizable to anyone who lived before W.W. II. The size and cost of our military has in turn stretched the power of the presidency far beyond the vision of the constitution. Gerstle cites many examples of how our military ballooned in size and then rapidly decreased when conflicts ceased. Of course we can cite the strategic dilemmas faced by the U.S. after W.W. II as a justification for maintaining a large military. In a very real sense, W.W. II did not end until 1989.
Strategic considerations aside, we should speculate if any other forces influenced this shift.
Eighteenth-century theorists drew upon the “citizen-soldiers” of times past. Greece and Rome both provided examples of this. On the one hand, we cannot have a militarized state, which would jeopardize our liberty. On the other hand, we need national defense. A nation of property owners motivated by legitimate self-interest would certainly rally to defend their land, their communities, if need be. The first 175 years (give or take) of our history demonstrated this. Right up through the end of W.W. I we demonstrated the ability to dramatically expand and contract the size of our military.
Perhaps our strategic situation changed so dramatically in 1945 that it necessitated the rise of a “military-industrial complex.” Or perhaps it was we ourselves that changed. Gerstle does not speculate.
Embedded in this question is the relationship between liberty and order. We have always recognized the need for someone to have the final say, and the need for people to “pursue happiness” in the way they see fit. This has always meant tolerating things one may disagree with. Should we ban pornography or not? Do we grant the freedom of some to own slaves? Do we grant the freedom of some to oppose same-sex marriages? Who gets to decide?
Gerstle’s book rather prosaically shows how this power to decide has transferred over time from the states to the federal government. This happened mainly under Democratic leadership. But conservatives also played a role at crucial times with their traditional issues of national defense/military. By “prosaically” I don’t mean that it was easy or unconvincing. He has extensive research and uses a methodical style that makes him quite convincing. But he leaves us with some unexplored questions and neglects to swing for the fences.
He makes clear the fact that ideas of liberty and coercion have always existed. All we have done over time is basically transferred the power of coercion from the state to the national government. As to whether representative government can exist in the post-industrial era, as to whether or not Jefferson was right or wrong, these grand questions go largely untouched. I for one can’t help but admire the brilliance and confident boldness of Jefferson’s vision–though I think I disagree. I wish Gerstle had done a bit more to inspire me one way or another, and done a bit more to help answer the perplexing question of the nature of America’s idea of liberty.
*Another possible historical lens would be the “wheel of fortune”–the idea that every civilization (and every ruler?) will experience a kind of boom/bust cycle. The medievals would argue, I think, that this cycle was meant to teach us about redemption. This lens would argue that some choices could delay the progress of the cycle perhaps even for a long time, but that “nothing lasts forever” and that some kind of decline remains inevitable.
Again, this idea had a historically long run, from the ancients down through Machiavelli at least. Our founders, many of them heirs to the Enlightenment, would not have accepted this idea.
**The same held true for the Fugitive Slave Act. Most pro-slavery advocates rejoiced at the new provisions of the law, but others saw that to achieve this they abandoned a key principle of keeping the federal government away from the slavery issue.
Without question slavery is a terrible moral evil. We must realize that the issue had other dimensions to understand the colonial and ante-bellum period. We may deplore the actions of another country or culture. When should we use force to change them? By what authority?