Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
Liberty
The Revolutionary Cause
IF YOU WERE to go back to 1776 and ask typical Americans to summarize, in one word, the fundamental principle underlying their new government, that one word would have been liberty. The American Revolution was fought to establish a new government to protect the rights of its citizens, ensure their freedom, and do little else. If you were to ask typical Americans today to summarize, in one word, the fundamental principle underlying American government, that one word would be democracy. The role of the government is to carry out the will of the people, where the will of the people is determined by the preferences they express through a democratic decision-making process. This book describes how the fundamental principle underlying American government has been transformed from liberty to democracy.
When the nation was founded, Americans viewed government to be the greatest threat to their liberty. The Declaration of Independence consists mostly of a list of grievances against the King of England — a list of the ways in which he had violated their rights. The American Founders intended to design a government with limited powers that would protect their rights, but that would be constrained from violating them. The limits of the federal government's functions and powers are enumerated in the Constitution forged at Philadelphia in 1787, but because some of the Founders felt that the Constitution did not spell out the limits of the government's powers clearly enough, they added the Tenth Amendment, the last of the Bill of Rights, ratified shortly after the Constitution, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."
By the end of the twentieth century, Americans viewed their government very differently from the vision of the nation's Founders. When the nation was founded, the federal government was viewed as a protector of individual rights, and by the end of the twentieth century, the federal government was viewed as an institution for carrying out the will of the majority, and for protecting and furthering the economic interests of its citizens. The Founders viewed government as a necessary evil. By the end of the twentieth century, government was no longer viewed as a necessary evil, but as a potential power for good. Democracy had replaced liberty as the fundamental principle of American government.
This transformation of American government occurred gradually, from the time of the nation's founding. The influence of major events over the scope of American government is well-documented and undeniable. The War Between the States, two World Wars, and the Great Depression are associated with substantial changes in the size and scope of American government, but it is also true that even without these events there has been a steady move toward expanding the scope of democracy and away from the protection of individual liberties. The result has been more government power, more government programs, and more government expenditures.
The most dramatic changes have come in the twentieth century, but even as early as 1835, Alexis de Tocqueville, in his book Democracy in America, was able to foresee the path over which American government would evolve. The constitutional limits placed on American government by the Founders have been eroded by the democratic institutions embodied in the Constitution itself. Democracy means accountability to the voting public, and this accountability gives voters the ability to demand that public policies be responsive to their interests. The constitutional challenge, the Founders clearly realized, was to limit the scope of government so that it could not be used to further the interests of particular groups over the general public interest.
The tremendous growth of government in the twentieth century has made this challenge even more formidable. When government is small and the scope of its activities is limited, special interests have few incentives to try to use the government to advance their interests. Government has little power to do so. When government is large and when its limits are less sharply defined, potentially large gains can be had if government policies are steered in a particular way. Thus, government growth results in a government that acts more for the benefit of narrow interests and less for the benefit of the general public interest.
Today, citizens rarely question the idea that America's political status quo is merely an extension of the constitutional principles of the eighteenth century. One reason is that they are propagandized to believe it is so. Everyone from politicians to civics teachers instills patriotic messages to all willing (and some unwilling) listeners. Dissenters are heard, to be sure, but they do not have the visibility and status of those who sell the principles of democratic government. Another reason is that citizens have little incentive to consider political issues, because as individuals, they do not make policy decisions. Voters face a very limited set of political choices, and when they do cast their ballots they know that their one individual vote will not affect the final result. Voters are ignorant of politics, but rationally ignorant. Little incentive exists to become informed about issues over which one has minimal influence.
Rational Ignorance in Politics
Despite the frequently heard claim that every vote counts, and that one of the most important duties of citizens in a democratic nation is to vote — and even the admonition that if you do not vote you have no right to complain — voters realize that their one vote will not determine an election's outcome. This may not be as true in local elections, where fewer voters participate, but in national elections, the probability of an individual voter casting a decisive vote is miniscule. In presidential elections, one is more likely to be killed in an accident driving to the polls than to cast a decisive vote.
Counterarguments to the idea that one's vote does not count typically rely on the fallacy of composition, noting that all votes together determine the election outcome so each individual vote must count. "What if everybody thought that and didn't vote?" But many people do vote, so for an individual voter, the election outcome would be the same regardless of for whom that voter voted, or whether the voter abstained. Despite the reality that one vote will not change an election's outcome, many voters insist that their votes are important. Individually, they are not, but collectively they are. If turnout is very low, that takes away some of the legitimacy claimed by those who are elected. So politicians have an incentive to promote the propaganda that every vote counts, and that citizens have a patriotic duty to vote.
Because the probability of casting a decisive vote is so small, voters have little incentive to become informed about the issues. When asked, a surprisingly large percentage of people cannot even name the candidates in legislative elections, let alone tell you anything about their positions. Once elected, representatives put in full days passing legislation, and most people know nothing about most of it. This does not mean that all voters are ignorant about everything. Some people are interested in politics and become informed for their own enjoyment, just as some people are interested and very well-informed about sports. Readers of this book are likely to be more informed than most people. Ask yourself this: Is Congress in session this week? If so, what issues are they considering? What are the positions of your representatives on these issues? Consumers tend to be better informed about differences in restaurants they might choose than they are about political candidates. That makes sense because they get to choose the restaurants at which they eat. But the politicians who represent them will do so regardless of how they vote.
Because Americans view the fundamental principle of American government as democracy, a critical analysis of democracy seems almost anti-American. One of the themes of this book is that the Founders had no intention of creating a democracy, in the sense of a government that would be guided by popular opinion. In fact, a critical assessment of this vision of democracy fits squarely with the Founders' vision of their new government.
The Constitution describes a government of limited and enumerated powers and was designed with a system of checks and balances to control government power. Originally, the government was designed to be one-sixth democratic. Members of the House of Representatives were to be elected by the people, but Senators were to be chosen by their state legislatures, and that remained the case until the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913. The judiciary has always been appointed, insulating that branch from democratic pressures, and the president was to be chosen by an Electoral College. Chapter 3 describes how the Electoral College was designed to insulate the selection of the chief executive from democratic pressures and also how the Founders' design rapidly evolved into the system of presidential elections we have today. A government wherein three branches check and balance each other can work only if the branches are roughly equally powerful. With a president chosen by an Electoral College, an appointed judicial branch, and Senators chosen by their state legislatures, only one-half of one-third of the government was elected by the people.
Even that Constitution, ratified in 1789 and one-sixth democratic, is more democratic than the Founders originally envisioned. The Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, did not allow citizen voting for any federal official. Chapter 4 gives a more detailed argument about why the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution of the United States was an early move in the transformation of the nation's ideology from liberty to democracy.
Democracy and Ideology
Americans often have been critical of propaganda from other nations. The communist bloc nations during the Cold War and Nazi Germany stand out, but post–World War II Japan has been criticized for whitewashing its record during the war, and almost any nondemocratic nation is subject to criticism that it stifles dissent through both formal and informal means. The US government controls the flow of much information, citing national security concerns, and any dissent often is portrayed as unpatriotic. Citizens tend to support their governments and identify with their policies because of institutions that give them ideological support.
Citizens accept government's actions, even when they disagree with them, when they view those actions as legitimate. A major function of propaganda is to convince citizens that the government is acting in their interests and that its actions are supported widely by the citizenry. An important function of democratic elections is to convey legitimacy upon the decisions that are made by those who are elected. If one agrees with the democratic process, even though one may disagree with some specific decisions made by the president or Congress, one still agrees that those elected representatives have the legitimate right to make those decisions for us.
The democratic ideology that creates the image of legitimacy explains why politicians always urge citizens to vote, despite the fact that most voters are very uninformed. If arriving at a good collective decision was the goal, voting would be limited to those who have both the knowledge and the motivation to best understand the alternatives, yet there has been a consistent push throughout American history to extend the franchise to everybody, including those who show little desire to even want to register to vote. As Tocqueville noted in 1835, "When a nation begins to modify the elective qualification, it may easily be foreseen that, sooner or later, that qualification will be entirely abolished. There is no more invariable rule in the history of society. ... [N]o stop can be made short of universal suffrage." If everybody votes, it is difficult to object to the decisions that are made by popularly elected representatives, who were chosen by the citizens to make those decisions. If turnout is low, however, elected officials will have a more difficult time claiming to be the legitimate representatives of the population.
The ideology of democracy conveys substantial powers to government, so it is easy to see why governments have an incentive to nurture it. Within the American experience, it is worth emphasizing the advantages to the political leadership of the ideology of democracy over the ideology of liberty. Liberty means freedom from the powers of government, and there is no doubt that the attempt to escape from government oppression was the motivation behind the American Revolution. An ideology of liberty naturally creates a population that is suspicious of government power, that wants the government to act within strict limits, and that will be intolerant of a government that tries to expand beyond those limits. An ideology of democracy advocates furthering the will of the majority through the actions of popularly elected representatives, which removes the most severe constraints placed on those in power.
The story of the transformation of the fundamental principle of American government from liberty to democracy is compelling partly because the powers embodied in America's twenty-first-century democratic government are those that eighteenth-century Americans revolted against to escape.
The Political Philosophy of the American Revolution
At the time of the American Revolution, the concept of liberty was relatively novel. The idea of liberty, as it applies to the creation of American government, goes back to John Locke, who published his Two Treatises of Government in 1689; less than a century prior to the American Revolution. The intellectual fathers of the American Revolution built their political philosophy on the writers of the European Enlightenment, including Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, and others. Revolutionary ideas were supported by pamphlets circulated extensively throughout the colonies citing Enlightenment writers, and especially Locke.
Locke's ideas on property, individual rights, and social contract provided substantial intellectual support for the American revolutionaries, and Cato's Letters, first published in the 1720s and extensively reprinted, generated popular support for liberty as the revolutionary cause. Throughout history, citizens had been viewed as servants of their governments, and the new idea that government should be the servant of its citizens took hold and sparked the American Revolution.
A good contrast for examining the ideas of the American Revolution is found in the works of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both are known for their support of the concept of a social contract, but the different rationales of the two writers give some insight into the newness of the revolutionary idea of liberty. Hobbes's famous treatise, Leviathan, was published in 1651, only about forty years prior to Locke's Two Treatises of Government, but the substantial differences in the ways they supported their ideas of the social contract show how new the idea of liberty really was at the time of the American Revolution.
Hobbes's analysis began with a vision of life in anarchy, without the protection of government. In Hobbes's view, life in anarchy would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Anarchy, Hobbes argued, would be a war of all against all. Hobbes believed that the only way to prevent this war of all against all was to form a government and have all citizens submit to the power of that government. Under the social contract, to quote Hobbes, every person would promise all others, "I authorise and give up my right of Governing my selfe, to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorise all of his Actions in a like manner." Hobbes makes it clear that to produce an orderly society, individuals would have only those rights that the government would allow to its citizens. Hobbes further argued that those who did not abide by this social contract could "justly be destroyed by the rest." The government that Hobbes advocates, which has absolute power over its citizens, and in which individuals possessed only those rights granted by the state, was the prevailing view of government at the time.
Locke's revolutionary idea was that people naturally have rights, and the role of government is to protect their rights. The state of nature, according to Locke, was also "a state of equality, wherein all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, and no one having more power than another ... without Subordination or Subjection." People have a right to themselves, and therefore to their labor. From this, Locke reasons, people have a right to property. "Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property."
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "Liberty in Peril"
by .
Copyright © 2019 Independent Institute.
Excerpted by permission of The Independent Institute.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
