15 August 2017
It all begins with the social contract. Dissecting and perfecting the relationship between the governed and those who govern is an enduring struggle that ensures contention and debate within any democratic system. In certain societies, this contract is ordained by God, which simplifes many issues. For example in Iran, the Supreme Leader is identified as one as closer to God than others, consequently a mandate to rule exists, ordained through heaven. In other societies, the right to rule is determined through lineage and ruling families. This was quite popular throughout history, but in recent times has subsided as a legitimate system. An old man I once met sitting at the bar of an Ethiopian restaurant perfectly articulated to me: “Kings and Queens belong in museums.”
In the United States of course, the relationship is much more nuanced, and a source of the constant back and forth between bickering political positions. Legitimacy is gained and lost through a contentious and hard fought electoral process. Although there are many founding documents that outline how the government is structured and the way the laws of the land are to be implemented, The Federalist Papers stands out, at least in my mind, as a conversation with America and a good place to look in times of modern day political questions. In Federalist number one, Alexander Hamilton lays out the problem before us as a people and a nation; “whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” (Alexander Hamilton; Federalist No.1)
This is the initial question of our Republic, and our foundational dilemma. Can we as humans, solve the problems of governance before us through reflection and debate or must we rely on accident and force as Hamilton warned?
A quick review of modern day punditry displays a nation that is moving towards rule by force, at least at the oratorical level. Through the demeaning and insulting of anyone who sees the world differently, we indirectly oppress voices, and turn otherwise constructive contributors to the discussion away from the arena. Not only is this counterproductive to the endurance of the Republic, but contrasts Hamilton’s core tenant regarding political disagreement…he wrote “For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely by cured by persecution.” (Alexander Hamilton; Federalist No. 1)
If heresies are rarely cured by persecution, why is it that political discussions devolve into insults and criticisms? I have a few ideas regarding the answer to this question, but that is not the objective of this post. The takeaway from Hamilton’s wise words are to gain an appreciation for the need of sophisticated and intelligent debate as an anecdote to the nastiness and partisanship of contemporary political dialogue. We as Americans must resist our temptations to echo the ultra-partisanship of cable news pundits understanding this is entertainment aimed at advertising dollars and not the establishment of governance through reflection and choice.