The Schism in Modern Political Thought

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” It’s better to be consistent - to be hot or cold. Even a man who sells his sword to the wrong cause, but fights like the Devil in defense of it, wins honor and respect from his enemies. In the same way, if a man believes something false, but believes it with all his heart, he earns a kind of honor by his sheer dedication. He weighed the sides of the controversy and chose one to throw his whole weight behind. But a man who's weak, inconsistent or illogical is not only wrong; he’s contemptible.

Perhaps this is why the philosophies of two men continue to inspire so much respect. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton could not have been farther apart on the political spectrum of 18th century America. Where Jefferson trusted “the people” to order their affairs better than someone in Washington could, Hamilton excoriated them as slaves to the “impulse of passion.” Jefferson wanted low taxes and the self-reliance of local governments; Hamilton wanted high taxes and a policy of easy credit for industries, roads, canals and bridges. Distribution and decentralization of government, the Jeffersonian ideal, stood in stark contrast to Hamilton’s desire for a “common, directing power.” The differences extended into foreign policy as well. The gentleman from Virginia wanted the policy of limited government he advocated on American soil to be equally as limited abroad: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” The New York lawyer had his heart set not only on establishing a European-style government, but an army and navy imperial enough to win battles, glory and overseas possessions. Despite all these differences, these two men had one thing in common: the beliefs of each formed a logical, reasoned whole.

Regardless of which man history vindicated, both have an unimpeachable record of intellectual honesty. Both were consistent. They understood that beliefs filter through one’s whole worldview to form an integral whole; beliefs can’t be mixed and matched according to preference. They can't be pawned to win votes or do what’s politically expedient without shaking the whole foundation on which they rest. Hamilton knew and admitted that an aggressive foreign policy required a complex, bureaucratic state at home. Jefferson knew that power corrupted. This led him to the conclusion that small government at home was meaningless if a powerful military establishment tempted the young republic into wars and empire-building. As his friend James Madison said, "War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few." Republicans today have rebuked their heritage as the party of humble foreign policy and instead embraced a massive military-industrial complex – as if this can be maintained with the low taxes and small government they trumpet. Democrats are no better. How can a welfare state of crony capitalism and exploding government hope to preserve the liberties the party professes such attachment to? Today's administration and its rivals insult our intelligence. Hamilton –whatever else one might say of him- would have known better.

Thomas Jefferson and Leading By Example

A perilously high national debt, burdensome taxes, corruption, political favors, extreme partisanship, a powerful executive branch, and a bitterly divided government. Does any of this sound familiar? It may surprise you, then, that I’m describing the United States as it was in the afterglow of John Adams’ administration over two hundred years ago. It’s true that, in relative terms, taxes, debt and the size of the national government in 1800 were a vastly different affair from what they are today. But it was a more principled world, where infractions that we may think small were taken greater notice of and recognized as a threatening precedent for posterity.

Carried by the tumultuous winds of politics, it was the Virginia gentleman, philosopher and statesman Thomas Jefferson who was chosen to lead the young nation. He was to be a sort of shepherd to lead them away from the shadowy valleys of nationalism to the still waters of republicanism. Although dubious as usual about being away from Monticello, Jefferson ascended triumphantly -but without Adam's pomp and circumstance- into the swamp that was Washington D.C. (it was still under construction). After ten years of European-style experiments with national banks, standing armies, censorship of newspapers, excise taxes and piling on of debt, Americans were ready to see the Revolutionary goal of “a wise and frugal government” manifested. They got just that in the “Revolution of 1800.”

We are familiar today with incoming presidents talking up bipartisanship and then proceeding to stack their deck with friends, relatives and donors. Typically, they blame the other side of the aisle for every problem the country experiences. Jefferson set a different course. After declaring "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists" in his First Inaugural Address, he answered Adams' last minute stuffing of the government with Federalists with stunning decency. By refusing to replace any except the most dogmatic among them with Republicans, the president diffused the cyclical feuding that had seized the nation for years. The next problem to fix was one of finance, and Jefferson began by selling  the stately coach, swords and elements of ceremony that Adams and Washington had favored. The president of the nation's first republic could often be seen braving the muddy streets of Washington on foot. The example he intended to set among his countrymen extended to his dress, which was very plain, a practice most shocking to foreign dignitaries. He made himself readily available to any and all. In fact, it was his rule to respond to every letter, and receive every guest who called on him during his presidency.

The federal government in 1800 was minuscule by today's standards, employing around 130 men. However, a number of these had been hired by the treasury under Hamilton's spendthrift secretaryship. Jefferson thought the positions an unnecessary waste of the peoples' money, so he eliminated them. In like manner, he scrapped more than half the navy (believing it encouraged foreign adventurism), reducing the government's expenditures by more than 25% even while abolishing the excise taxes that the previous administrations had devised. To Jefferson, a government with debt unnecessarily led its people down the road to servitude. A couple years of thriftiness later, his administration became the first to entirely pay off the national debt. Although some of Jefferson's later years would tarnish the brilliant beginning of his presidency, he left an example of how a president who leads by example, and is the first to take the sacrifices he asks others to accept, can heal a torn nation and give it a strength and solvency that has yet to be matched again.

The Decline of Federalism, Part II

(If you missed the first part of this series, check it out here)

Over the next thirty years, the United States became embroiled in the slavery debate. The balance of free and slave states tenuously ebbed and flowed until the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision. In Chief Justice Taney’s final verdict, slaves were branded as “property,” and Southerners’ defense of slavery as a matter of states’ rights was upheld. This pairing of two different issues in one unfortunate decision made state sovereignty, that vital half of federalism, appear specious, if not downright evil. Several years later, when the South resorted to the hotly debated right of secession, Abraham Lincoln built on Jackson’s precedent and called forth Federal troops to reduce the South to submission.

Even the most just wars end in diminished liberty, and the Civil War was no exception. The victorious Union overreacted to the problem the states had posed in their appeal to a supposed “right” to own slaves by stripping them of their rights altogether. The Fourteenth Amendment expanded the Bill of Rights to restrict states and placed liberties that had been sacrosanct to those states and their citizens perilously under Washington’s control. A wave of nationalism obliterated what loyalty remained to the state governments. Secession was branded with eternal infamy. “What was once a legitimate argument and rallying cry [came] to symbolize…the terrible injustice of a slave-based society.”

As Calhoun had observed thirty years earlier, “…it is not possible to distinguish, practically, between a government having all power, and one having the power to take what powers it pleases.” With the states robbed of any effectual means of checking Federal power, federalism was dealt a mortal wound. As if on cue, Washington’s powers began to explode. Woodrow Wilson’s administration first passed the 16th Amendment. This legalized the income tax and ensured that the Federal government had a vast financial advantage over the states. “By employing its ability to make grants to the states to…implement national programs, Congress has…[transformed] the states…into administrative arms of the national government.” The 17th Amendment followed, making senators directly elected and divorcing them from their position as the states’ agents. The states were now without a voice in the government they had created.

Most foreboding of all was the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Constitution as a living document. This had its genesis in the relativistic view that, in Wilson’s words, “[Government] falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin.”

A Supreme Court armed with the ability to redefine the Constitution undermines the very idea of a written constitution and imperils our rights. It has proved especially deleterious to what traces of federalism remain to slow things down. In the 1930s, the Court coupled this judicial activism with support for the New Deal’s engorgement of Federal power. In 1941’s U.S. v. Darby Lumber, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of power to the states and people was only a truism; in Wickard v. Fillburn, the wheat a farmer grew for his own chickens was declared to be under the jurisdiction of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

In retrospect, Jefferson’s and Madison’s warnings were remarkably farsighted. Without true, state-centered federalism, the Supreme Court has indeed become a mere rubber stamp for Washington’s agenda. The Court’s endorsement of the New Deal led to its endorsement of the welfare agenda of Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and the surge of Federal power it required. Moreover, the Court’s expansive view of the Bill of Rights as a limit not just on Congress, but on the states, has led it to conjure de facto “rights.” 1965’s Griswold v. Connecticut saw justices discover an individual “right” to contraception that overrode Connecticut law. Americans were granted the “right” to murder an unborn child eight years later in Roe v. Wade, even though most states had outlawed abortion. One wonders what other “rights” might be contrived by our government next - the “right” to gay marriage?

In 2001, George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” initiative seized more control of education from the states and gave it to a Washington bureaucracy. Federal education spending has tripled, but grades have continued to decline. During the BP oil spill, FEMA regulations prevented states’ timely response to the disaster. Arizona’s controversial immigration law was a desperate answer to Washington’s inability to enforce the powers it has assumed. After more than a century of living outside federalism’s constraints, our government is finally facing its overextension. Our fiscal crisis is fundamentally caused by the consolidation of a massive array of powers that were designed to be dispersed to the states and people in true federalist fashion.

The answer to the fiscal crisis, abortion, gay marriage, government corruption, an out of touch administration, and citizens’ apathy, is to revive federalism and restore to the states the decision-making power they were intended to wield. “Federalism was all about keeping government within reach of the individual. It was…about keeping government in its place…and maintenance of…democratic sentiment. As federalism has diminished as a constitutional…and political principle, much of what makes this nation what it has been is put at risk…. Our ability to restore the primacy of federalism in America may well shape what this nation is to become.”

The Decline of Federalism, Part I

(Read part II here)

When conservatives look to Washington to enact every part of their agenda, they are unwittingly kicking the supports -all fifty of them- out from under conservatism itself. How far we have come from our Founders’ vision of a republic where “The powers delegated…to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." If the states are closest to the people, it is only in their legislatures that most issues can be properly and effectively settled. "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power,” Jefferson warned, “it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as…oppressive as the government from which we separated." The most pressing public policy issue of our day is the decline of “federalism,” that is, the dispersal of power between states and the nation. Indeed, our “Federal” government’s increasing lack of federalism is at the heart of every other struggle our nation faces today.

To the Founders, the states were indispensable bastions of freedom. The people identified themselves as Virginians or New Yorkers, not Americans. They were represented in their state capitals by men whom they knew, and who knew their concerns, often personally. The states also maintained a healthy competition with each other in their rich diversity of tradition and law. “For these reasons, the states seemed the more appropriate locus for government authority. Only by maintaining the sovereignty of the states could republican government flourish.” To that end, but also to impel cooperation among the states, the Constitution created a Federal government that could act decisively in its own sphere of power, but one that would “owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments….” This dependency was another piece in the elaborate machinery of checks and balances that the Founders planted in our nation at its inception, ensuring that Washington’s reach would remain limited.

Almost immediately after the ratification of the Constitution, this novel idea of a “federal” government of “dual sovereignties” -a national government with a few defined powers, the others being retained by the states or people- aroused fierce controversy. James Madison had made it quite clear in Federalist #39 that “The proposed Constitution…is…neither a national nor a [confederal] Constitution, but a composition of both….” but finding this middle ground of “federalism” proved difficult for the young nation. As early as 1798, when the dubiously constitutional Alien and Sedition Acts were passed, parties emerged that erroneously claimed that the government was one or the other. The disagreement revolved around whether an act of Congress that was unconstitutional was binding on the states. The implications were profound.

In response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, men like Jefferson and Madison argued that, had the United States been founded as a national government whose decisions were binding on the states even if unconstitutional, then “…that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers….” In effect, Congress could acquire new powers without fear if it was accountable only to its own Supreme Court, and not the states. To that end, it was argued, each state reserved “an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the…measure of redress” –i.e. the right to “nullify,” or refuse to enforce, an unconstitutional Federal act.

Although Daniel Webster had used this theory of nullification to oppose the draft, and the Hartford Convention had drawn from it to encourage New England’s secession, no one put it into practice until 1828. A Federal tariff passed that year was refused enforcement by South Carolina on grounds of unconstitutionality. Taking up Jefferson’s mantle, Vice President John C. Calhoun defended this act of nullification, contending that “The Government is one of specific powers, and it can only exercise those powers expressly granted…all others being reserved to the States….” Nullification was seemingly discredited when President Jackson threatened to send troops into South Carolina, and the state backed down. The more vital issue of state sovereignty became guilty by association. It now appeared to be simple Southern feather-ruffling. This did not bode well for federalism, hinging as it did on the concept of states’ independence in their own sphere. If the Federal government could intrude into that sphere to force acceptance of its will, did the states retain any freedom in reality? 


TO BE CONTINUED

The Power to Destroy

Most people who didn't sleep through their high school history classes are familiar with the Supreme Court case McCulloch vs. Maryland. Those who were the brighter stars in their constellations may even remember the essence of the dispute: In the midst of an ongoing firestorm over the relationship of the state and federal governments, the Second Bank of the United States mischievously established a branch in Maryland. The state legislature fired back by passing a bill that placed such a tax burden on the bank that it couldn't hope to make a profit. Chief Justice John Marshall rejected this bill and with it the ability of a state to impede a Federal project. He declared that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." As you can see, it was an interesting era; one where "Federal government" and "larceny" weren't yet synonyms.

This blush of youthful innocence wouldn't last terribly long, however, thanks to a Federal government that overcame the troublesome check of the states by learning to wage unjust wars by unjust means. In 1861 the first (and, at that time, unconstitutional) income tax was passed as part of the Revenue Act of 1861, confiscating 3% of the annual income of Americans to aid the war effort. Prior to this, the Federal government's revenues had come mainly through indirect taxes like excise fees, and for good reason. Indirect taxes targeted events rather than specific people or property. The Founding Fathers' revolt against governmental power run amok had been partly because of the ease with which direct taxation could be abused. They enshrined this experience in the Constitution's Article Nine, expressly forbidding an income tax. Any remembrance of this was all but drowned out by the furor of the Civil War years. In 1862, a second act was passed that expanded on the Revenue Act. A bedrock precedent was laid for the progressivism of the early 1900s when the 16th Amendment was passed, making the income tax constitutional. At first rates were well below 10%, but with newfound legal authority came newfound abuse, and they began to climb steeply. At first, there were seemingly good reasons, like World War II. But it is the nature of injustice once justified to numb its victims. The 1940s' jump in rates by more than 400% was quickly followed by less extenuating, and more suspicious, reasons to which there was little resistance. With a seemingly unlimited pool of wealth to draw from, America was soon the proud owner of several bizarre accomplishments characteristic of a government with more money than it needs: Korea, Vietnam, and the Great Society.

Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire contains a very striking account of what eventually happens when a nation allows its government to prey directly upon the fruits of its labor: "In the sixth year of his reign Constantine visited the city of Autun, and generously remitted the arrears of tribute, reducing...the proportion of their assessment...to eighteen thousand heads, subject to the real and personal capitation [i.e., income tax]. Yet even this indulgence affords the most unquestionable proof of the public misery. This tax was so extremely oppressive...that, whilst the revenue was increased by extortion, it was diminished by despair: a considerable part of the territory of Autun was left uncultivated; and great numbers of [citizens] rather chose to live as exiles and outlaws than to support the weight of civil society."