Skip to content

Is America too big?

August 18, 2009

  Is America too big?

  That is a question that has lingered in my mind for about a year now. When I ask the question I am not asking if America is too big in terms of influence around the world and I am not asking if America is too powerful but rather I am asking if America is too big physically, have we outgrown our government?  I am talking about whether the federal government can properly and effectively govern a population of this size. The country was much smaller when our form of government was instituted and surely while the founders probably believed that America would consist of most of North America before too long could they have possibly understood how big America would turn out? Surely Thomas Jefferson understood that America would someday extend from sea to sea as he broke with his anti-federalist beliefs as president in order to more than double the size of the country with the Louisiana purchase. An act that he believed exceeded his authority but an offer too good to pass up.

  This is a topic that I find myself extremely conflicted on. While I consider myself a constitionalist and an originalist I also consider myself a states rights advocate, these two ideals at times are at odds with each other. I have thought about writing this post many times in the past and have actually started it twice only to abandon the post, but now I am going to attempt to write it once again.

  There is one form of government that many of the founders feared almost as much as monarchy and that was democracy (I will explain below), that is why our original form of government after the revolution was a confederacy of states with  really no federal government. When it became obvious to all that the confederacy was doomed to fail it was also realized that a more powerful form of a central government was needed. But the founders believed that a democracy was a good form of government for small nations (or states) but not so good when it came to a nation of bigger proportions. How could a large nation govern in the best interest of all its people across the nation? What might be considered a good idea for California residents may not be what is best for Texas residents, what is right for Wisconsin residents may not be what is best for New Hampshire residents and so on.

 This is why the founders took great pains to set up a republic during the constitutional convention and not a democracy. The founders feared a nation where 51 Americans out of every 100 could force their beliefs on the other 49 Americans. They considered this a different form of tyranny. Many of the founders, Thomas Jefferson included, feared a strong central government. They went to great extents to limit the federal government.

  The founders took great pains to insure during the constitutional convention that the states would maintain influence. Until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1913 United States senators were chosen by the different states not by the people. While the representatives were chosen directly by the people to represent them the senators were chosen by the states to represent the state’s best interests. Because the state oficials  were elected by the voters and they subsequently chose the senators the people indirectly elected the senators. After the 17th amendment was ratified the people became more represented by the senators than did the individual states. The people now directly elected the senators thereby weakening the influence that the individual states had, leading to a more federalized form of government. Sometimes I wonder if we would have been better off if the 17th amendment had never been ratified. It sometimes seems to me that the 17th amendment may have done more to change the form of government from the republican model to the democratic model, a model that many founders feared, than anything else. 

  However having the states choose the senators probably meant that the states would have too much influence over the people of their states. Therefor giving this power to the people under this premise could not have been a bad idea. Again I am conflicted. There must be another reason why the people have lost control of the government.

  This brings me back around to my belief that the federal government has grown bigger than many of the founders had hoped, and even bigger than many of them had feared could happen. From Washington, whose opponents claimed had too much power and was trampling the constitution; to John Adams, who signed the Alien and Seditionact and jailed people for simply speaking out against the federal government (a clear violation of the constitution); to Abraham Lincoln who expanded government control and jailed opponents;  to Woodrow Wilson and FDR, both of whom grew the federal government and reached a level of government intervention never before seen or dreamed of by the founders; to Teddy Roosevelt who went after private businesses virtually every president has grown the influence of the federal government. Both sides of the isle, for different reasons, have seen fit to expand the government to fit their agenda. Some of these presidents may have been justified and morally correct to do what they did but in the end they expanded the influence of the federal government and diminished the rights of the individual states. When is the last time that the government has actually gotten smaller?

  It seems that over the years as the federal government has expanded we have drifted from a representative republican form of government to more of a democracy. This doesn’t seem to have happened because of the constitution but in spite of it. That is how I am able to balance my two beliefs; the first being my belief as a constitutional originalist and the second; my belief in states rights. It isn’t that the constitution has failed us as a founding document, it is that the federal government has failed us in following the constitution.

  So, to answer my original question, has America become too big? I don’t think that America as a country has become too big but rather America the government has become too big. As the country grew the answer was not to expand the role of the federal government but rather to make sure that people were better represented at the local (state) level. It is much easier to govern the people at a local level than a national level, the founders understood this, and we need to return to this. If more power was returned to the local level the people would have more power to control the government that is supposed to work for them. This is what the founders intended and this is what is vital to the American form of government, a republican form of government.

  When the constitutional convention was over a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what they had given us, he famously replied, ” a republic if you can keep it.”

  I am afraid that we have lost it.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

11 Comments leave one →
  1. Terrant's avatar
    August 18, 2009 10:56 pm

    One thing I would like to point out is that the country is much more urbanized than it was during the founding. At that time, if there was a recession or depression, people were able to provide for themselves by farming or hunting. You simply cannot do that today. There are simply too many people.

    Another thing is that the government has allowed corporations to become too powerful. The founding fathers did not intend for them to become as powerful as they are now. I’m sure that a large number of them would actually agree with McCain-Feingold. At the time of the founding, corporations were only limited to a lifetime of 40 years and had to be for the common good such as building canals.

    I bring up corporations because if you take a good close look at what is actually going on, both sides are being manipulated by corporations. MSNBC is owned by GE which stands to make lots of $$$ if cap and trade is passed. Freedom Works and Americans for Prosperity are representing the insurance companies.

    I think that the system is still has life left in it. One thing is certain, we are long overdue for a constitutional convention. Many of these controversial issues of the day should be put on the table and debated by the states.

    Oh yeah, term limits and repealing the 17th amendment FTW.

    Like

    • Steve Dennis's avatar
      August 19, 2009 4:50 am

      You make some good points. I am just becoming more frustrated with the whole system, I don’t know how we will ever be able to get it back on track.

      Like

      • Terrant's avatar
        August 19, 2009 10:34 pm

        One of the things I do not understand is why the states are not taking up the issue. The states do not need Washington’s permission for a constitutional convention. That might be the way to get it back on track; The People need to pressure the legislatures to call for it.

        Like

      • Steve Dennis's avatar
        August 20, 2009 5:08 am

        I think that some of the states may be starting to take action with the recent votes to reaffirm states rights, but I just don’t think that there is enough people out there who care enough about this issue to make it worthwhile for the people in power.

        Like

  2. TexasFred's avatar
    August 19, 2009 12:44 pm

    Some of us here in Texas have been trying to decrease the size of the USA for a long time now…

    Like

    • Vincent's avatar
      Vincent permalink
      August 19, 2009 9:58 pm

      Yep, sounds good to me. Long live the Republic.

      Like

  3. Mustang's avatar
    August 19, 2009 7:01 pm

    Excellent blog and comments, my hat is tipped to Mr. Pink Eyes and Terrant. TexasFred, I’m with you in sympathy, as a Sooner, I’ve hoped you would leave the Union for a long time, then we wouldn’t have to play you in football.

    This is a very thoughtful subject, and is one worthy of discussion at length. If you look at the political demographics, your first thought is to cut the West Coast and New England out of the Country and let them fend for themselves. They are now nearly entirely supported by onerous taxes and Federal welfare. They would fail within five years if left on their own.

    As to the Constitution, a stricter interpretation of the 10th Amendment would strike down hundreds if not thousands of federal laws and regulations. It would also surgically remove half the federal government. I would agree to a repeal of the 17th Amendment. As to Corporations, it would seem that some are responsible and some aren’t. Of course, officially, they respond to their board of directors who are elected by stock holders, sometimes publicly, others privately.
    Probably the best bet would be to limit size, but that in many cases would increase costs to the consumer. What a ball of crap economics is! Have you ever wondered why an degree is Economics is a Bachelor of Science? Exactly how much science is in there? I digress.

    Offhand, we could have three smaller countries based on the same constitution and operated under an umbrella federation for defense only.

    Keep it up, I’m going to follow this discussion and think upon it.

    Like

    • Terrant's avatar
      August 19, 2009 10:57 pm

      My thought is that the commerce clause needs to be given additional limitations. A lot of Washington’s mandates are backed by the commerce clause. The tricky thing about that would be that both sides have abused it.

      What to do about the power of corporations is going to be a tough nut to crack. The courts consider them to be artificial people that get the same rights as real people. Size limits might have possibility. If you have many smaller companies, there will be more competition and innovation. If the companies are smaller, The People would have more power over them (boycotts and class action lawsuits would be much more effective).

      I know you were digressing about economics but it is quite scientific in the classroom. When it come to putting it in practice, it gets all political. BTW, political science is a BS as well which is oddly appropriate.

      Like

      • Steve Dennis's avatar
        August 20, 2009 5:15 am

        Yes! The commerce clause is the one clause that has been abused probably more than all of the others (along with the provision about providing for the general welfare). This clause has been used to thwart the intentions of the constitution for years and years. Both sides have been able to apply this clause for their benefit on issues that it has no business being used for.

        “political science is a BS as well which is oddly appropriate”
        You can say that again.

        Like

    • Steve Dennis's avatar
      August 20, 2009 5:12 am

      Thanks Mustang, I thought that this was an interesting subject as well. I don’t know if there will be much to follow as it hasn’t gotten the kind of traffic I had hoped for.
      The 10th amendment seems to have been forgotten but the enforcement of it would be a great place to start.
      I am also surprised that my thought on the 17th amendment has had support from both of you who have commented on it, I thought that idea would have been more controvercial.

      Like

  4. Mustang's avatar
    August 30, 2009 8:39 pm

    The 17th Amendment was to give the states more power in the Federal Government, in effect, more power to blunt the Federal government’s power. The state government’s selection of senators was to counter the people’s election of representatives, a popular choice that may or may not be made in the best interests of the state. There are many obvious examples right now that the people have made the wrong choice, and often made it over and over again.

    Like

Leave a comment