A DUALIST JEFFERSON

One of the anecdotes about Nelson Mandela that I found particularly telling was that he invited his jailer to a front row seat at his inauguration for the presidency of South Africa. I repeat it to point out how “federalist” President Mandela was. The reason I characterize this gesture with this moniker is because central to federalist thinking is the principle that good governance is advanced by bringing into political play as many parties or interests as possible.

In the first of the Federalist Papers,¹ Alexander Hamilton divides all polities into three types: those based on force, those based on accident, and those based on choice. We associate different institutional structures with each type. Those based on force are noted for concentrated power in the fashion of a king or dictator. Those based on accident are noted for power of the elites – an aristocracy or plutocracy. And those based on choice are noted for power of varied interests that make up the political landscape of a nation. The last sees no limitation on the number of interests that should participate in the formulation of public policy. The implementation of this principle has further structural and procedural implications.

First, a polity of choice holds as most important its foundational constitution – the covenant or compact – that spells out the agreement by which those who have chosen to formulate the polity do so. The constitution sets out to form a structural grid of offices, levels of authority, agencies, and even, in some cases, divided sovereignty designations. Yes, it's complex. It is a structure that can lend itself to suffering through politicians who continuously defray responsibility, but it is also a structure that opens opportunities for more to become involved and also opportunities for citizens to find those government officials who are apt to be favorable to any given demand. As a citizen, if you don't like the response in office A, then you can go to office B or office C and so on. In principle, this approach to governance tends to avoid extremely hierarchical tendencies. As with any form of polity, there is a significant danger associated with its approach. That is, polities based on force are in danger of becoming tyrannies; polities based on accident are in danger of becoming cabals of oligarchs, and polities based on choice are in danger of becoming chaotic or anarchistic. When analyzing each of these types, a student is wise to keep the respective dangers in mind and expect that its development, at a fundamental level, fuels many of its more significant political issues.²

Of course, the US exemplifies a polity based on choice. For one, it is a federation which is a subtype of “choice” polities. The US has its matrix structure with bifurcated sovereignty, sovereignty that resides both with the central government and with the state governments. And I see that through its history, to varying degrees, that there has been a particular view of politics which has provided a source of instability. I can trace the manifestation of this challenge from its very beginning as a national polity. That is, the natural rights construct, with its emphasis on the individual and, to some, unrestrained liberty, has been the source for chaotic, anarchistic developments. And no founding “father” was more responsible for this construct's initial influence than the prime author of our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson. Yet, such a designation should not be made without some qualifying explanations. What makes his contribution along these lines so nebulous is that his association with natural rights thought was due more to isolated comments and written passages than to any well thought-out exposition of ideas. His natural rights assertions, I believe, were motivated by his admiration of John Locke. Locke wrote of individuals giving up a limited amount of liberty in order to form a polity. The British philosopher contextualized his comments with the devising of a fictional origin to societal arrangements – that they emerged from a state of nature. Humans formulated such arrangements by being willing to surrender only those liberties that made societal formation possible. This, to a generation of political thinkers who were fighting the overwhelming level of repression that was the product of a long history of elitist governance, sounded liberalizing. Between the king and the nobles, the history of British rule might have been leading the world into opening up political opportunities, but it still represented a stronghold as to what an individual could and could not do. To men like Jefferson, that history represented stifling horizons and they wanted to change this whole basic political arrangement. Natural rights ideas provided the theoretical arguments by which to attack this legacy. The Declaration is an excellent example of what this fight was all about. But how far down this theoretical path was Jefferson traveling?

To begin, Jefferson was not an abstract theoretician. His proclivities were more of a practical bent. According to Richard Hofstadter, Jefferson was more at home studying and sharing his wisdom about the practical concerns of agriculture. Yet, he was no slouch concerning political thought. And his thoughts did have their influence among Americans of the late 1700s and early 1800s, an influence that was substantial and long lasting. Yes, he did talk of how revolution was the useful “manure” for the tree of liberty, but these were populist assertions that were not backed by any mature thinking. Instead, he spoke more convincingly and importantly when he reacted to the work and efforts of his fellow founders. He supported the structural selection, by the founders, of a balanced constitution in which the several classes were represented. “It is not by the consolidation, or concentration of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected.”³ That is why the Constitution creates the structural matrix our governmental system exemplifies. Structurally, according to federalist principles, government should not limit the number of interests that can participate. With these interests comes the diversity of opinions, principles, and passions that are present within the polity at any given time and that should be considered by policymakers. This holds a dual challenge: the inclusion of all interests and the safeguard of each (even of each individual) against the potential tyranny of the majority. Jefferson was sensitive to this danger: “One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one … As little will it avail us as that they are chosen by ourselves.”⁴ This is Jefferson's support, similar to that of James Madison, of an expanded republic. It is a view that expresses a version of federalist principles. So while one can trace an initial argument for natural rights from this founder, one would be wise to make this overall judgment with a healthy dose of restraint.

 

1One should remember this title in considering the content of that historically important collection of essays.

 

2Many of the ideas contained in this description are attributable to the insights of the late, eminent scholar, Daniel J. Elazar.

3Hofstadter, R. (1948). The American political tradition. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Quotation on p. 29.

4Ibid.