An Imperfect Compromise

Growing up as children, we are constantly told the stories of the heroic American founding fathers overthrowing the tyrannical King George and establishing the bastion of liberty known as the United States. As we grow older, our opinions of these founding fathers may shift – they are no longer virtuous marble deities, rather intelligent but flawed men who tackled the outrageous task of inventing a new government. While our opinion of those Washingtons and Jeffersons ebbs away, a high opinion of the representative democracy they invented may go unchallenged. When we hear words like “Liberty” “Freedom” and “Equality” we may think it synonymous with our Constitution. Politicians and pundits alike use the Constitution as some sort of bedrock, as if challenging it were some sort of truly vile or reprehensible act. The truth is, like the men who wrote it, the Constitution is nowhere near perfect, and the constant process of challenging, amending, and reinterpreting it is more “democratic” than the document itself.

It doesn’t take a genius to see how much the world has changed since the 1780’s and 90’s. Back then the economy was run on the backs of slaves, colonial European powers touched every state border, and to vote you had to be a white, landowning citizen. When George Washington was elected in 1789, turnout was abysmally low. George Washington didn’t even officially run against anybody in the general election, so his ascension as a whole defies one of the most basic notions of popular sovereignty. It was only when Washington retired in 1796 did we have a competitive election, featuring rival ideologies in what will eventually be known as our two party system. Did the founding fathers have this system of competing factions in mind when creating the legislative and executive branches? Of course not, as Washington’s Farewell Address specifically warns against “domestic factions”. Yet at this time the two party system is so deeply ingrained into our government that many would probably think it was originally part of the Constitution.

Although it is of course dangerous to wantonly assault the document (hence the Judicial Branch’s role in protecting it), seeing it as anything beyond an imperfect compromise made between idealistic lawmakers would be a gross overestimation and possible oversimplification of our history. Seeing it as such helps us better understand the fragility and vulnerability of democratic government as a whole. To prove this point we need only to look at the cornerstone of our republic: the election process. Although one side may be more optimal for the administration of the nation, another side may compensate with personal charisma, rhetoric, or political position / situation. Ask the losing side of any previous election and they’ll tell you the “wrong side” won. This goes back to our discussion in class about the right vs. optimal decision. Even if this so-called “right decision” is made, you may have an entire half of the country completely convinced it was the “wrong one”. Having an angry electorate that feels isolated from the political process – “in the wilderness”, so to speak – can be very dangerous and uncooperative to a new administration. Even with the promise of new elections in years to come, Democrats and Republicans alike can become vulnerable to radicalization as the electorate becomes more and more polarized.

As we explore the inner workings of American Government, it is important to realize that the issues we face as a democracy – in the Constitution and during elections – may seem like the same issues popping up over and over again, when in reality the situation keeps drastically. The unique experiment continues, and new variables are added every year.

5 Responses to "An Imperfect Compromise"

Matthew Lidz says:

September 7, 2017 at 3:13 pm

Spencer, while I do agree with your point about how our view of the founding fathers and the constitution change over time. I disagree about different issues gain prominence in different years. I concede that topics such as the role of privacy in the internet age, the war on terror, and globalization are relatively new issues that only gained major significance recently. In my opinion, all of the issues and solutions that are addressed every election deal with the fundamental philosophical split in American politics. What is the role of the central government? Should more power reside with the federal government or with the states? The first party system in the United States came into being over the issue of federal authority. Hamilton’s plan for a national bank was criticized by Jefferson and Madison for being an overreach of federal power, as the creation of a bank was not mentioned in the constitution. The nullification crisis during the Jackson administration dealt with the idea that states had the right to ignore federal laws. The Civil War dealt with the issue of slavery and if the national government could set limitations on where slavery can reside. The Reconstruction Era dealt over how much should the North be involved in ensuring integration between the races and protecting the rights of slaves. The 20th Century saw the rise of the Progressive Era with Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson and the New Deal with FDR that dealt with issues over how involved should the government be in regulating the marketplace. Segregationists during Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrat campaign in 1948 and resistance to the Civil Rights Era took upon the mantle of states rights, stating that the government had no right to interfere with the laws of states. The Reagan Revolution’s advocacy for a limited federal government and more power for states to set their own affairs permanently shifted the political landscape. The rise of the Tea Party movement in the last few years was interpreted as reaction to federal government overreach in response to the Great Recession. All of these above issues deal with the issue of the power and role of the federal government.
Alyssa Holt says:

September 10, 2017 at 1:02 pm

I certainly agree that most political decisions made in both the federal and state governments are often an “imperfect compromise” made between both parties. Where I disagree is on your statement that 50% of the country is left disappointed with most political decisions and elections because they feel it was the “wrong choice”. In order to get legislation passed or run a successful election, politicians also have to settle for a result other than their ideal plan of action on controversial issues. This may mean giving into the other political party’s legislation for one issue in order to pass legislation for an issue more important to your party’s views. It could also mean writing legislation that is less extreme, so members of the other party would be willing to vote for it. Either way the compromise that is required from both parties to make progress in government can result in both sides not being 100% happy with the outcome, whether it was in favor of their party or not.
The two sided political environment that our country has developed also can result in widespread disappointment. Whether it’s an election or legislation, being forced to agree with the person or ideas that your party has decided on, even if it is not fully something you believe in leaves people in the winning party disappointed as well. I think that typically in our government more people than just the “losing party” or 50% of the country end up with a decision they didn’t truly want.
bm6kd says:

September 10, 2017 at 4:09 pm

Spencer, you made a very compelling argument that I would have to agree with. Our system is flawed and those who say it is not are in denial of the reality we live in. The United States was formed with a very specific group in mind, as you said, white land owners. While our society today has changed, the modification we make to laws are not advancing as fast. To me, it seems people use our founding documents as tools to make their point. Each group interprets it a different way to their advantage. Blacks use it to argue that they should be treated equal while others use the same writing to argue that they should be oppressed. I would again have to agree with your points about democracy. Is it really a democracy when half, and in this particular election more than half, of our country do not agree with the “right choice”? Democracies are flawed. Real change cannot be exacted when elected officials are more focused on re-election and making the “right choice” and they do not choose what is best for the people or for our country. Politicians today appear to be puppets that are used to make people believe they are influencing government and making choices. It seems hard for me to believe that is really what our founding fathers wanted when they established our great nation.
Lauren Rothenberg says:

September 10, 2017 at 9:02 pm

I agree with a lot of the key points and issues you raise in your blog post however I do believe a lot of these “flaws” we see in our modern democracy are heightened as a result of the controversial current political climate. I think the aspects of our government system that have historically been reason for concern have recently reached a new level of discussion and awareness because of the highly-debated and tense presidential election.

You mention how much our country has changed since the Constitution was written and I also believe that this is a big reason that our country often goes head-to-head. It is seemingly illogical and implausible that a nation that has advanced so quickly still uses a document written so long ago as the foundation for many important decisions. Having said this, I think the Constitution does serve an intrinsically valuable purpose to our nation as an underlying basis of our values, rather than as an underlying basis of our political system.

You argue that many of the predicaments our nation faces are seemingly consistent year to year, election to election, when in reality they are not. Although I do agree to a certain extent with this assertion, I find that the arguments on either side of most of these debates relate directly back to the Constitution and what is outlined in it thus giving off the illusion of that the political conflicts are all the same.

It seems ignorant of our country to give so much weight to the Constitution in an obviously ever-changing political climate.
Daniel Bonaventura says:

September 10, 2017 at 10:36 pm

The amazing part about our country, is that fact that the structure of our government, the laws and values that we enforce and the major problems we deal with, have continually changed and evolved since the original scripture of the founding fathers. As flawed as many believe our government is, it is nowhere near as flawed as it was two hundred or even one hundred years ago. It is crazy to think that the country that was built so strongly on the economic dominance of slavery and the precedent of xenophobia, is the now a country revered for its diversity and it’s progressiveness. So yes, maybe the literature of the founding fathers was flawed but it is what they didn’t say that in large part has shaped our country. What has truly shaped our country is the ability to amend certain laws that we see to be unjust or not in our best interests. It is the obligation of the government to listen to an ever changing citizenship population. This is what separates America from other countries whose government can tend to stagnate on laws and policies. Regarding our current government and the social status quo of the U.S. I do believe there are major flaws and major inequalities. But when you look into our past there is hope for the future. if in just our short history and experiment with a new form of government, we have eliminated so many laws and culture the fueled hate, and discrimination. I can only imagine how much our country will continue to evolve for the better in the coming years and beyond.

Comments are closed.