Is America too big?
While visiting one of my favorite blogs, I ran across a post by John Carey at Conservative Hideout titled “A Spoonful of Federalism” which reminded me of a post that I had written awhile ago. In “A Spoonful of Federalism,” John alluded to the fact that the federal government has been able to use the 17th amendment– which changed the way senators were chosen from being appointed by the state legislatures to being directly elected by the people– to diminish the power of the states and increase the power of the federal government.
In my post from last year– Is America too big?– I made the argument that America has been slowly changing from the republic that the founders envisioned, into a democracy– a form of government that the founders feared almost as much as monarchy, and that this was partly due to the 17th amendment.
Our premises are slightly different, but John’s post made me revisit mine, and I have decided to re-post it today with a few slight revisions. At the end of this post I have decided to include the video that John used in his post, it is Fred Thompson talking about classic federalism.
So without further ado:
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 (anti-federalist as redefined in a brilliant political move by Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, John Jay, and other proponents of the constitution during the constitutional debates while trying to gain support for a national government– anti-nationalist would probably be more accurate, as Thomas Jefferson would probably be considered a federalist under the classic definition of federalism) 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 as president and he believed was unconstitutional, but an offer too good to pass up.
This is a topic that I find myself extremely conflicted on. While I consider myself a constitutionalist 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 to speak of. 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.
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– the tyranny of the majority– but tyranny nonetheless. Many of the founders, Thomas Jefferson included, feared a strong central government. The delegates to the constitutional convention went to great extents to limit the federal government and provide checks and balances.
The founders took great pains to ensure 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 elected 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 officials were elected by the voters, and they subsequently chose the senators, the people indirectly elected the senators. This gave the states a voice in congress, while the people’s voice was heard from the representatives.
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 nationalized form of government.
I wonder if we would have been better off if the 17th amendment had never been ratified. It sometimes seems to me as if 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 other reasons 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 George Washington– whose opponents claimed had too much power and was trampling the constitution– to John Adams; who signed the Alien and Sedition act, 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 his 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 aisle, 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 away 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 which 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.
America's Watchtower 
57 states is just right, lol
LikeLike
Too funny!
LikeLike
While I agree we have moved more in the direction of democracy from republic, I am afraid I do not know how that leads to the conclusion that the government of the United States is ‘too big’. The size of a government needs to be large enough and effective enough to solve the problems that are faced by the polis. While I agree it would be nicer to shrink the government, this may only be accomplished by 1) making the government more effective (which is a scary thought) or 2) allowing other non-republican institutions who does not have allegiance to the polis (like BP) to solve problems (a doubly scary thought) or 3) allowing problems to go unsolved and thus destroy our country through disintegration. None of these solutions are appetizing to me.
Perhaps we do not have a republic in the way the founders envisioned, but would a such a republic be better? Republics of that structure tend to become even more bureaucratically heavy and inefficient than even the republic-democracy hybrid that we currently have.
Wishful thinking not withstanding, a government cannot be static if it is going to be effective in a changing world. The takeaway from our founding fathers is that they were liberals rejecting the past, not locking themselves in the past.
LikeLike
I would catagorize the founders as libertarians.
LikeLike
Close enough. But then again, Libertarianism is a progressive political theory. Our founders were certainly not conservatives by any stretch of the imagination, they were very much out there, being both liberal and progressive. The Tories were the right wing conservatives.
LikeLike
Oh, and response to your Patton quote, might I suggest….
“Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate – and quickly.” – RA Heinlein
LikeLike
General Patton was talking about the Nazis, do you suggest that we would have been better off if we had found a way to make Hitler our friend?
LikeLike
Was he talking about Nazi’s? I’m not sure Patton ever even said that quote although it is attributed to him. I certainly don’t know when and where he said it. He did not say it in his famous June 5th 1944 speech (I have a copy in front of me). In addition, he only fought Germans (Nazi is a political party, not a country, and most Germans were not Nazi) for a very short period over a very long career. So if the quote is his, he was probably not talking about Germans or Nazis.
But you touched on one of the characteristics of right wing conservatism that I really hate. It’s the tribal idea of reducing non-members of the tribe to being sub-human. You chose the most diminishing label you could think of to justify denying mercy and treating humans as sub-humans.
Personally, I’m a member of the human race. All of it! And I believe each and every member is worthy of dignity and my respect. If I can make them friends, I will do so because they are worthy of it. If I cannot make them friends, I will prevent them from doing harm, and show what mercy I can in the process. To hate them, to make them sub-human, is to diminish me, God, and humanity as a whole.
My beliefs in the last paragraph are very much libertarian beliefs, and one can find very similar comments in the founding fathers. Unfortunately, I find these values to be almost the antithesis of the tribalism that comes from the conservative right.
LikeLike
The quote got me thinking about Patton a little. I am by no means a scholar of Patton but I have studied him some. I dug into my library a little and here are a couple of observations…
– Patton never used the term “Nazi” in his famous June 5 1944 speech.
– The famous quotation “”No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.
He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”, contrary to the movie, is not from his June 5 speech but instead is attributed to Patton by Carlo d’Este.
– The above quotation seems to reflect a much more humanitarian warrior than the “No mercy” quote. It also seems to be much more in line with Heinlein’s quote I mentioned previously and Libertarian values.
Marla
LikeLike
First, let me apologize for my short responses to your original comments, I did not think that you would be back to read them so I didn’t give you the proper responses that were due.
I am going to try to respond to all of you comments here in an effort to consolidate them.
I disagree with your assertion that libertarianism is a progressive political theory. Sure there are liberals that consider themselve libertarians, but there are also conservatives that consider themselves libertarians also, although for different reasons. How can a liberal consider themselves a libertarian when they are for such things as smoking bans, trans-fat bans, and government regulation of the free market? But at the same time, how can conservatives consider themselves libertarians (as do I) who are for a ban on gay marriage and abortion?
Both sides have a claim on libertarianism to a certain extent, liberals on the social issues, and conservatives on the economic issues. If you read my “about me” you will find that I am more socially moderate than you probably think that I am.
Yes, all of the founders at least read about the enlightenment, and many– such as Jefferson and Franklin– were enlightened, but that does not mean that they were liberal in today’s meaning of the word. There is a difference between liberalism of today as compared to what it would have meant back in their time. Their whole premise was that the people should govern themselves, and that a smaller, less intrusive government of the people was the proper form of government, that sound more like today’s conservative than it does of today’s liberal.
As for the quote from General Patton, I have searched around the internet a little more and found that while the quote is attributed to Patton, it is unconfirmed that he is the one who actually said it.
When I stated that he was talking about Nazis, I used that term to distinguish between the Germans who did not support Nazism and the Nazis themselves, somehow you have interpretted that to mean that I thought all Germans were Nazis. That is and was certainly not the case, although after reading Mein Kampf I do not cut the Germans as much slack as I once did. I used to believe that Adolph Hitler rose to power by shielding his true beliefs from the German people, but any German that read his book and still voted for the National Socialist party is almost as guitly as he for what happened. With the execption of the “final solution” Adolph Hitler made all of his views known to any German who had taken the time to read about what he was all about.
You mentioned that you are a member of the human race and that every human deserves respect and dignity. Yet you are the one that used the word “hate” when talking about the right wing. In my three years of blogging and in my 2,699 post to date, I don’t think that I ever used the word “hate” to describe those on the left. Sure, I can get heated and use “colorful” language, but I do not hate those that do not believe what I believe, I find it interesting that you would use that word.
Now, about Patton, he believed that Nazis were a political organization as you have stated. That was why he refused to participate in the de-Nazification of Germany after the war, he belived that most people joind the National Socialist party in much the same manner that Americans joing the Democrat or Republican party. That is what ultimately led to Ike finally relieving him from command. Was this because he was a humanitarian, I doubt it. After all, he did want to continue the war by turning on Russia amd marching into Moscow because he hated communism even more that he hated the Nazis.
You seem to have a Utopian sense of the world that just isn’t based in reality. There are evil people in this world, and there always will be. That statement is not based on my ideology and my beliefs on what is right or wrong. It is a simple fact that some people have no good in them. Hitler was one such person, there is no reasoning with someone like him. While war is horrible and should only be used as a last resort, the fact is that sometimes war IS the answer. I wish that it weren’t true, but sometimes there is no other choice.
LikeLike
I probably reacted strongly to your original post. I found it loaded as heck and you sounded way to Beckian with that post. Your follow-on post was very refreshing. I apologize for any offensive reference I may have used.
I can’t respond to everything but let me try to respond to the important points.
“How can a liberal consider themselves a libertarian when they are for such things as smoking bans, trans-fat bans, and government regulation of the free market?” – This is a false logic question. You are assuming that since some liberals are for certain policies, all liberals and liberal philosophies must be for those policies. This is utterly false logic.
But I will say this, contraray to what is implied in your comment, a free market (which is something I strongly support) is quite different than an unfettered market (which I think you were actually thinking of). Basically, a very long history of business and the markets has shown that unfettered markets are NOT free markets. Bernie Madoff, ALG and derivitives, and BP are all examples of how unfettered markets are almost the antithesis of a free market. For example, a free market requires transparency, yet all of these negative examples I listed occured because the unfettered market negated transparency.
This means that to preserve a free market, there must be external feedback forces. It doesn’t have to be government, but at least government is somewhat responsive to the polis (unlike companies like BP who’s allegiance is totally the shareholder).
On Patton, I did that search myself and could not find the original source. The more I think about it, it almost sounds un-Pattonish to me. He was an old fashion warrior who strongly relied on honor, he respected his enemies, so I find that the quote seems contradictory.
Note, I’m impressed you have read Mein Kampf. In college, I actually had a speech and persuasion professor use it as a textbook. If you can slog through it, it is interesting.
I’m not sure I have a Utopian view of the world so much as a practical optimistic view of the world. For example, I use to believe the unfettered market equated to the free market, especially as a young college radical libertarian. This was a very Utopian view. But history and current events and experience has rubbed my nose into the fact that they are very much not the same thing. Yet still, I believe political knowledge can be moved forward and made better. Is that too Utopian :-)?
while I would love to believe an unfettered market equates to a free market (something I use to believe in), I’ve had my nose rubbed in to the fact they are not the same too many times to believe it anymore.
LikeLike
Ooops, the last paragraph fragment in my last post was an edited out text fragment that should have been deleted. Please ignore (it doesn’t say anything new).
LikeLike
No need to apologize. Just for the record I don’t watch Beck, Hannity, or listen to Rush and the biggest reason is that I don’t want people to think that I am just parroting what they are saying. Anything that I write that sounds like them is just a coincidence.
I will concede your point about lumping all liberals together, it is something that I do but try to avoid. I understand that not all liberals agree on every issue and the same is true for conservatives. There are varying degrees of both liberalism and conservatism.
I understand that there does need to be some regulation of the free market, but I have a strong adversion to government intrusion (sounds libertarian 🙂 ) and fear that if allowed the government will coninue to take more and more away through excessive regulation.
I think your take on Patton is about right, he did respect those that he was fighting against. But although my Patton quote has not been confirmed it still sounds like something he could have said. He did say in that famous speech “We’re not going to just shoot the sons-of-bitches, we’re going to rip out their living Goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks.”
Mein Kampf was very interesting, I couldn’t put it down. It was disturbing and full of propaganda, but it is a must read for anyone that is a student of history. It provides some insight as to what was going on in Germany before the war. You should have seen the look on the face of the woman who rang up my Mein Kampf purchase– she looked disgusted.
Over the last two years I have been reading quite a bit of history; my favorite topics are revolutionary America, the Civil War, and WWII.
LikeLike
One idea I would like to suggest is that politics and political ideas are too complex to express on a one dimensional grid. I use a two dimensional grid sometimes (see http://touchofpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/libertarian.jpg?w=300&h=300) but even that is too simple.
The second idea I would like to suggest are the definitions of liberal. A quick search can find a number of different definitions, but I think the following are pretty good…
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Do you really object to these principles? Is this not what libertarianism is about?
—–
On another subject, I would suggest that when Ayn Rand was forming her philosophy, government was by far the biggest threat to individual freedoms. But the world has changed a great deal since she wrote her thesis. Today, I see a much bigger threat, and that is big business. Consider that one foreign company has had the power to almost totally destroy the Gulf of Mexico and the US government is close to being powerless to stop them. Consider that unlike a government, a corporation owes no allegiance to any polis other than the owners. So while I am totally on board with Ayn Rands concepts of individual freedom and responsibility, I think the devil we face now is quite different from her devil.
——
Finally on a lighter note, if you like history like you mentioned, might I suggest some historical fiction. It’s the Flashman series of novels by George McDonald Fraser. The author explores 19th century imperialism through the eyes of a hilarious anti-hero. Yet the historic research is absolutely marvelous. Highly recommended.
Marla
LikeLike