Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Where’d We Go Wrong?
What policy mistake most contributed to our current situation in the United States? I think it’s fair to say we’ve diverged widely from what the Founders had in mind for us when they declared independence from King George III. To keep things reasonable, let’s limit this to changes since the Declaration of Independence. So you can point to the Constitution but not to Christianity, as Christianity predates the Declaration.
One might point to direct elections of senators, for instance, or Prohibition. (One could make an argument for both, but I won’t.) Perhaps our biggest mistake was abandoning the Articles of Confederation? Or not taking the Anti-Federalists’ arguments more seriously?
Ideally we’re talking about root causes, not symptoms. But I don’t think we should limit it to root causes that can be fixed, since that would preclude, for instance, an observation that basing a Constitution on a virtuous citizenry may have been unrealistic. If people aren’t fundamentally virtuous, I don’t think that can be fixed, but it still could have been a mistake.
What say you?
Published in Domestic Policy
Most of the expansions of governmental and governmental power came because of wartime “necessity” and the social changes brought about by war. The New Deal was an exception. Also, some wars that didn’t result in a lot of governmental expansion were the War of 1812 and the 1st Gulf War.
Conservatives should keep that in mind when they recommend more war in the Mideast. Sometimes wars can’t be helped, but government is going to end up bigger at the end of them.
Brent the importance of the 17th is that it removed the representation of the states from the function of the federal government and thus removed their having a stake in the system. This is partially to explain why the 10th is given no legitimacy in “polite” circles of DC because here the states no longer matter.
This.
We can yak about Buck v. Bell, or Marbury v. Madison, or the Mexican War, or the Civil War, or the Spanish-American War, or WWI, or this or that amendment all day long… but it’s all just an exercise designed to ignore the elephant in the room.
Fixing an error of that magnitude in a society derived from the principles enumerated in the Declaration is a seemingly impossible task.
Is it really surprising that so many of the “fixes” were counter-productive?
If I may, I would say worse. Because that was the end of thinking of your state as your country and not the Federal government. Once you destroy the notion of allegiance to local government, it becomes easy to convince them to turn to far away powers to arrange their local societies.
I respect that, but think it is a romantic interpretation of what the 17th changed.
State governments are addicted to the debt fueled largess of the federal government and it is hard to imagine them sending Senators to end that gravy train.
CT Law’s discussion that relates the 16th and 17th is the first I’ve read like that and think he is on to something.
You may be interested to know that Ted Cruz did not favor repealing 17 and made the point that if 17 wasn’t enacted there is no way the Texas legislature would’ve sent him or someone like him to Washington DC.
I think there is merit to your point of view.
The greatest accomplishment to come from the civil war was the emancipation proclamation. There was other collateral damage as a result of a nation divided against itself regardless of the key reason why.
That well may be true but think of this, a senate made up of people sent by legislatures will hardly pass spending bills with strings attached to the states in order to receive it and thus the states have the power not DC.
If the states can get funding via debt drawn on the full faith and credit of the federal gov’t I think they will embrace it.
Additionally, many of the programs, are ‘state run’.
I think this gets to what Reticulator said about allowing the country to form with slavery entact. I think he might be right about the downfall of the republic beginning there.
True. I suppose larceny will always find a way.
Indeed.
But let’s keep in mind that thinking of the United States (not its central government) as one’s country pre-dates the Civil War. It’s very evident in the Federalist Papers that that was the understanding of a good many of the authors, adopters, and readers of the Constitution back then.
Leaving out the whole slavery aspect and discussing the government structure aspect. The civil war was basically the beginning of the end of federalism. I believe in keeping government as local as possible so from point of view what came together after the war was not true to the founders vision and the beginning of the strong federal government, weak state model. We went into the war as the United STATES of America, we came out the UNITED States of America.
I didn’t know that. I find it interesting that he gave it some serious thought. It speaks well of him. His point is a good one, too.
While people are right that it did a lot to destroy states as independent entities, it doesn’t usually work well to have your representatives choose representatives for a higher level of government. Doesn’t work well in the EU, hasn’t worked well here. I wish it wasn’t that way.
I would take this one step farther and say the framers of the Constitution saw deepening state loyalties under the Articles of Confederation as a threat to the cohesion of the American union. Each state was printing its own money, regulating its own commerce, establishing its own legal precedents, etc., etc., all to the detriment of an impotent federal government that relied on states’ charity for revenue. The framers were astute enough to realize a balkanized confederation of nation-states was ultimately a weaker nation, more vulnerable to internecine squabbles, and, possibly, external conquest.
He has also discussed at some conference (CPAC?) that the 17th reduced state legislature’s autonomy and say in the federal. I don’t know that he called for its repeal.
I was referring to an interview shortly after he was elected where he made the statement that absent 17 he would never be a Senator.
In the beginning you had to own property in order to qualify to vote.
These requirements were removed state by state from 1792 until by 1856 the last state property-ownership requirement was repealed.
That seemed fine in those days, but a tax-paying requirement should have been made a part of the Great Society entitlement programs. Taking entitlement program funds should require giving up the franchise.
I’d be ok if we could get back to the size and scope of the federal government of the early 1970s.
Agree. If we could get back to pre EPA and department of education we would be in much better shape.
Sounds like Federalist Papers to me!
Agree on the slavery comments.
In addition to everything already said, our (very praiseworthy) overturning of slavery established the principle that our Constitution was an immoral document that should be eternally ignored in order to make our society better – the exact sentiment underpinning the Progressive movement from its roots to this day.
Had the framers insisted on the abolition of slavery in the Constitution, the more perfect union would have never been formed.
Of course, if the 17th Amendment hadn’t been passed we might not need people like Ted Cruz in the Senate to keep it in check.
I think your and CTLaw’s point about the federal-state spending channels are very important. Nonetheless, I think the 17th amendment needs to go.
The fundamental question is: what is the purpose of the Senate if it’s elected the same way as the House? Sure, Senators theoretically represent their “state”, and the distribution of Senators gives smaller states more swing.
But in reality, the Senate is made up of representatives with larger districts than in the House. Their underlying incentives are not significantly different. So why even have a bicameral legislation if both houses are going to be chosen with the same method?
Yup, that is true. Maybe a slightly less perfect union could have been formed, but probably not that, either.
Good question. The senators represent their entire state, while representatives represent their districts. That is a difference, but not as big a difference as when state legislatures elected the senators.
Perhaps nearly universal suffrage, generally. Yes, the direct election of Senators, but also the inclusion of people without property and without the most elementary learning (the ability to read and to understand basic math).
I used to think that the common right to vote necessarily follows from respect for the free will of all people, including the dumb and foolish. But now I think freedom needn’t be expressed through government to be had. When government is not intrusive, many are happy not to participate.
Democracy empowers voters to direct, not merely to be considered. Some requirements to possess that power are prudent.
My candidate is the Vietnam War. We reaped practically no geopolitical gains, hurled hundreds of thousands of lives into the meat-grinder, wasted billions of dollars of American treasure, and empowered a strain of domestic anti-Americanism that has become woven into the ethos of progressive Democrats. I would even go so far as to say the election of Barack Obama would not have been possible but for the legacy of Vietnam War-era political protest movements.
As an alternative to the 17th Amendment, I would cite our switch to electing the entire legislative branch by popular vote.
Whether or not you like the 17th amendment, I think the Founders had the right idea that the people should be directly voting for every officeholder in DC, as is currently the case. There is an upper limit to the utility of giving the people more power, and I think we’ve long gone past that point.
Plus, it is ridiculous to have 3 different bodies in the legislative process which are all chosen by the same people – it makes a mockery of the notion of checks and balances.
Not allowing a check and balance on the Supreme Court without amending the U.S. Constitution.
The United States has a population of 318.9 million. If the entire country agrees on something except for 5 people on the Supreme Court, the 5 justices win. (You probably need about 80% of the people to agree on something to pass an amendment.)
A certain number of state legislatures, 3/4ths, 4/5ths, 9/10ths or something, should be able to override the heartless, tenured Supreme Court which interprets the Constitution by previous bad opinions, political correctness, and northeastern newspaper editorials.
If the Constitution had simply capped the income tax at a maximum of say 10%, that would have at least been something.
A lot more war bonds to fight World War II?
I think the difference between the 2 is how representation is calculated 2/state and the 6 year term.
Reps need to be more responsive to voters whereas Senators do not have to start running for re-election the day they are sworn in. I think this goes to being the more deliberative chamber.