Madison Was Right -- Faction Broke It

Yesterday, I gave a talk at the Olympic Club on how our Democratic Republic form of governance is broken, just as James Madison feared.  My talk was triggered by Ann’s musing on why the British were being asked to vote on exit from the EU rather than Parliament deciding such a momentous and complex question.  That got us to talking about representative government – how it works and sometimes doesn’t work.

First, do I prefer representative government, a republic, to direct democracy?  Yes, if it’s a democratic republic. Not all republics are democratic; the Republic of North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, The Russian Federation have parliamentarians who are supposed to represent groups of citizens, but they are appointed by Chairmen Kim or Xi or by apparatchiks beholden to President Putin.  They are not elected democratically by those they are charged to represent.

Our US Democratic Republic is the best form of government ever created – when and if our representatives represent their constituents, all their constituents.  (That’s a tall order when the average constituency of a US Representative is over 700,000 citizens, but that’s a subject for another post.)  It’s the best form of government when their focus is on securing and improving the peace, prosperity, freedom and happiness of the entire commonwealth they represent.

The founding fathers believed in representative government in great part because they were wary of democracy.  That’s why they set voting qualifications (some quite misguided and subsequently dropped.) That’s why, while allowing direct election for the house of representatives,  they called for election of Senators by state legislators (which we’ve also changed.)  

Madison

But what worried them even more than direct democracy was the subversive effect of partisanship, what they called “faction.”  Madison warned us in Federalist #10 and #14 of the dangers of faction.  Looking at histories of popular governments, he concluded that their most common downfall was that“A zeal for different opinions. . . divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.” Do you not picture Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid going at each other?  (He also commented that . “the most common and durable source of source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property.” But that, too, is another story.)  

Is faction, i.e., parties and partisanship, always destructive?  Not necessarily, but it becomes so when representatives begin to represent only those of her or his constituents that voted for her or him, and to represent those who contributed to make their election possible – many of whom may not be constituents at all.  My God, haven’t we been living with just such subversion of representative government for the last eight or twelve years!?!  The Donald would undoubtedly denigrate Madison as “Little Jimmy” (he was 5'4") but James Madison had it right, and his concern was shared by the likes of Franklin, Mason of Virginia, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington and many other “founding fathers” that the Trumps and Cruzes love to prattle about.

 

People wonder why we have an Electoral College.  It was born out of this same fear of faction, specifically to impede the formation of faction and protect independent judgment in electing a President.  Each state creates electors– a group of private citizens, neither representatives nor government officials -- who convene in their state but not convene with those of other states, who vote for President and Vice-President, and who then submit their votes in writing to the President of the United States Senate.  Today, of course, the Electoral College is a bit anachronistic in this age of instant communication that can facilitate formation of factions, but that it still exists is a reminder of the concern our founders had over the subversive effect of faction.

What are the signs of factional breakdown of representative government? 

• When a sizeable minority of constituents feel ignored, when they are angered and no longer trust their congress or legislature.
• When voting participation drops (‘my vote won’t make any difference’.)
• When representatives avoid accountability by kicking back tough decisions to the citizens, as has the UK Parliament re Brexit.  Here in Washington State, the legislature has kicked back to us citizens, through ballot referenda, 49 decisions since 2008 rather than do the job we pay them to do and make the hard decisions.  Forty-nine times they’ve ducked so they could say “don’t blame me; you guys voted for/against . . . “
• When their votes reflect the interests of campaign contributors (many of whom are out of their district or state) rather than that of their constituents.
• When ideas or pragmatic proposals that would benefit the whole constituency are rebuffed because they do not comport with party ideology.

Sound familiar?  Distressingly so.  When representative government breaks down, the field is plowed and fertilized for demagogues like Sanders and Trump.  (Yes, demagogues; I just offended beloved relatives of mine who are Sanders fans.  But he, too, fits the definition:  a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument; a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.)

Incidentally, an aside re the widely disparaged super delegates: aren’t these in fact representatives who are intended, as the Senate was intended by the founders, to be a vehicle for cooling down popular passions of direct democracy?  And are they not democratically elected representatives -- either members of the House of Representatives or Governors or elected party officers?  And are they not likely to save the Democrats from their demagogue? . . . And don’t the Republicans now wish they had some Super Delegates of their own!

When representative government is working, demagogues are trumped by confident voters.   When it is not working, they are embraced by folks each of whom have their own ills and complaints but are united in anger and in the conviction that they have not been listened to.  Demagogues cannot deliver what they promise and only breed further discontent that is even more dangerous to democratic republicanism.

What to do to restore our Democratic Republic, to assure representative government can work? 

• Test candidates on their intent to build, rather than tear down; to find workable solutions that can benefit the commonwealth.  (“I will repeal Obamacare.”  “I will rescind every Obama executive order.”)
• Reject the candidate who proudly proclaims “I will never compromise;” that disqualifies him or her from serving in a legislative body seeking to get something done, to progress and improve. 
• Suspect ideologues. 
• Suspect someone who promises much. 
• Suspect someone who promises “to listen to the people.” 
• Search for the modern John Stuart Mill who told those who asked him to run for parliament that, in effect, ‘I will use my best judgment to do what is right for us, but do not expect me to blindly follow your wishes.’ 
• Search for judgment and character that might make others of different views respect and want to work with this candidate.  

The only way to work out of this bind is to develop representatives who put constituency above party.  And, of course, to work to reduce or emasculate moneyed interests’ influence on your representative.  Easier said than done, I know, but done it must be.