The Rise And Decline Of The American Polity. (I) A Truth Unspoken
http://www.faithinreligion.net/articles/3696/1/The-Rise-And-Decline-Of-The-American-Polity--I--A-Truth-Unspoken/Page1.html
Thomas Belvedere
Thomas Belvedere is the pseudonym of a top consultant to senators, representatives, governors, and the media. An accredited expert witness in federal court, he has a Ph.D. in political science. He authored "The Source of Terrorism: Middle Class Rebellion" available at http://www.booklocker.com/. By Thomas Belvedere
Published on 08/30/2009
America's Founding Fathers did not create a democracy. Rather, they created a "polity," a hybrid of oligarchy and democracy based on a large middle class.
"The day is not far off when the economic problem will take the back seat where it belongs, and the arena of the heart and the head will be occupied or reoccupied, by our real problems -- the problems of life and of human relations, of creation and behaviour and religion."
-- John Maynard Keynes, 1945(1) --
Keynes was far ahead of his time.
Maybe, too far. The crash of 2008-2009 proved that "the economic problem" is still in the front seat. It drives us; we do not drive it.
Will the emerging world of scarcities of absolute necessities -- food, air, water -- force the change Keynes sought? To date, there has been precious little that is economical about economics. But nature may be preparing revolutionary changes -- for the better world Keynes spoke of if those changes are consciously appreciated and managed, for a worse one if unconsciously left to money's "invisible hand."
The 2008-9 crisis was a golden opportunity for men to begin to control the economy -- instead of it controlling them. The Bush and Obama administrations, by throwing money at the problem, let that opportunity slip away.
Thus, although nature's coming changes could help the middle class, we will take the more pessimistic but plausible route and assume men will fail to learn -- that money will stay in the driver's seat. What then?
The decline and fall of the middle class would destroy the American way of life, notably its form of government. Contrary to popular belief, that government is not a democracy but a "polity."
Aristotle wrote that a polity is a hybrid government of democracy and oligarchy based on a large middle class. He believed the polity is the "best" government because the middle class moderates other classes that are incapable of trusting each other.
After noting the crucial importance of the "man in the middle" as a neutral, reasonable arbitrator, Aristotle concluded: "The better, and the more equitable the mixture in a 'polity', the more durable it will be."
As for what could spoil an equitable mixture, he warned that the biggest menace came not from the poor or the middle class, but from the wealthy who seek to convert a polity into an aristocracy:
"[Forgetting the claims of equity], they not only give more power to the well-to-do, but they also deceive the people [by fobbing them off with sham rights]. Illusory benefits must always produce real evils in the long run; and the encroachments made by the rich [under cover of such devices] are more destructive to a constitution than those of the people."(2)
That avarice and those illusory benefits -- above all, so-called "rights" that are given as gifts, thereby retaining and reinforcing the power of the giver -- are fueling the economic decay of the middle class and the weakening of its reconciler role.
That decay is the reason why the American polity is starting to unravel. That decay is also why The Great American Illusion, Polity = Democracy, is being exposed for the first time in over 200 years of existence. Finally, that decay is the origin of the loss of legitimacy plaguing not only governments but also families, businesses, schools, and neighborhoods.
The Founding Fathers never said they were building a polity, an oligarchy/democracy hybrid. Not once. They knew the word "polity"; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison used it.(3) However, they only employed "polity" in its generic sense, as a synonym for "political system."
To that deafening silence I will add a curious footnote. The Founding Fathers referred to Montesquieu as the "oracle" of the philosophy that guided them in constructing the United States Constitution, so that the "legislative, executive, and judiciary departments ought to be separate and distinct."(4)
Well, according to Montesquieu, the ancient Greeks "called that type of constitution a 'police'"; he then made this footnote: "See Aristotle, Politics, Book IV, Chapter VIII."(5) In that chapter, Aristotle analyzed the polity, or oligarchy/democracy hybrid.
It is impossible to argue, then, that the Founding Fathers did not know about a polity or hybrid oligarchy/democracy. It was right in front of them.
Why were the Founding Fathers unwilling to use the word "police/polity," either in the sense of the separation of powers (Montesquieu) or as a hybrid of oligarchy/democracy (Aristotle)?
Why did they not simply declare openly what they were doing: creating a polity? That is to say, create what Madison characterized in a note to himself this way: "The most difficult of all political arrangements is that of so adjusting the claims of the two classes [i.e., 'the class with, and the class without property'] as to give security to each, and to promote the welfare of all."(6)
Answer: on the one hand, such a declaration would have openly admitted that the system they were building had a major oligarchic component. That admission would have been unacceptable to many Americans who had just fought the war of independence and who were sharply divided over whether to adopt or reject the constitution proposed by the Founding Fathers.
Indeed, the opponents of the constitution vociferously claimed it would favor the oligarchy. To counter that criticism, Madison put up a brilliant, expedient defense: he, too, vigorously attacked any "pretended oligarchy."
What, according to Madison, would prevent the proposed constitution from favoring any particular class? "I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America -- a spirit which nourished freedom, and in return is nourished by it."(7)
Madison's remark gives the impression that he was a fervent supporter of democracy. However, that was decidedly not the case. The confidence that Madison placed in "the vigilant and manly spirit" of Americans was diametrically opposed to what he asserted in an earlier article:
"In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob."(8)
On the other hand, then, Madison did not favor a democracy. The American oligarchy would not have accepted it.
Neither an oligarchy nor a democracy, then. And certainly not a "polity."
Enter the "republic." "Republic" was the word the Founding Fathers substituted for "polity."
In going undetected for over 200 years, the switch was one of the greatest political maneuvers of all times.
FOOTNOTES
(1) "First Annual Report of The Arts Council" (1945-1946).
(2) Aristotle, "The Politics of Aristotle," translated and edited by Ernest Barker, Oxford University Press, New York, 1962, p. 186. (Book IV, Chapter XII). Translator's brackets.
(3) "Federalist Papers" 17 and 52.
(4) "Federalist Paper 47."
(5) Montesquieu, "De L'Esprit des lois,"in "Oeuvres completes II," Bibliotheque de la Pleiade, Gallimard, Paris, 1994. p. 411. (Book XI, Chapter XI).
(6) James Madison, "Note 1 in Convention of 1787, August 7th," in Ralph Ketcham, "The Anti-Federalist Papers and The Constitutional Convention Debates," Penguin Books, New York, 1986, p. 151.
(7) "Federalist Paper 57."
(8) "Federalist Paper 55."
-- John Maynard Keynes, 1945(1) --
Keynes was far ahead of his time.
Maybe, too far. The crash of 2008-2009 proved that "the economic problem" is still in the front seat. It drives us; we do not drive it.
Will the emerging world of scarcities of absolute necessities -- food, air, water -- force the change Keynes sought? To date, there has been precious little that is economical about economics. But nature may be preparing revolutionary changes -- for the better world Keynes spoke of if those changes are consciously appreciated and managed, for a worse one if unconsciously left to money's "invisible hand."
The 2008-9 crisis was a golden opportunity for men to begin to control the economy -- instead of it controlling them. The Bush and Obama administrations, by throwing money at the problem, let that opportunity slip away.
Thus, although nature's coming changes could help the middle class, we will take the more pessimistic but plausible route and assume men will fail to learn -- that money will stay in the driver's seat. What then?
The decline and fall of the middle class would destroy the American way of life, notably its form of government. Contrary to popular belief, that government is not a democracy but a "polity."
Aristotle wrote that a polity is a hybrid government of democracy and oligarchy based on a large middle class. He believed the polity is the "best" government because the middle class moderates other classes that are incapable of trusting each other.
After noting the crucial importance of the "man in the middle" as a neutral, reasonable arbitrator, Aristotle concluded: "The better, and the more equitable the mixture in a 'polity', the more durable it will be."
As for what could spoil an equitable mixture, he warned that the biggest menace came not from the poor or the middle class, but from the wealthy who seek to convert a polity into an aristocracy:
"[Forgetting the claims of equity], they not only give more power to the well-to-do, but they also deceive the people [by fobbing them off with sham rights]. Illusory benefits must always produce real evils in the long run; and the encroachments made by the rich [under cover of such devices] are more destructive to a constitution than those of the people."(2)
That avarice and those illusory benefits -- above all, so-called "rights" that are given as gifts, thereby retaining and reinforcing the power of the giver -- are fueling the economic decay of the middle class and the weakening of its reconciler role.
That decay is the reason why the American polity is starting to unravel. That decay is also why The Great American Illusion, Polity = Democracy, is being exposed for the first time in over 200 years of existence. Finally, that decay is the origin of the loss of legitimacy plaguing not only governments but also families, businesses, schools, and neighborhoods.
The Founding Fathers never said they were building a polity, an oligarchy/democracy hybrid. Not once. They knew the word "polity"; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison used it.(3) However, they only employed "polity" in its generic sense, as a synonym for "political system."
To that deafening silence I will add a curious footnote. The Founding Fathers referred to Montesquieu as the "oracle" of the philosophy that guided them in constructing the United States Constitution, so that the "legislative, executive, and judiciary departments ought to be separate and distinct."(4)
Well, according to Montesquieu, the ancient Greeks "called that type of constitution a 'police'"; he then made this footnote: "See Aristotle, Politics, Book IV, Chapter VIII."(5) In that chapter, Aristotle analyzed the polity, or oligarchy/democracy hybrid.
It is impossible to argue, then, that the Founding Fathers did not know about a polity or hybrid oligarchy/democracy. It was right in front of them.
Why were the Founding Fathers unwilling to use the word "police/polity," either in the sense of the separation of powers (Montesquieu) or as a hybrid of oligarchy/democracy (Aristotle)?
Why did they not simply declare openly what they were doing: creating a polity? That is to say, create what Madison characterized in a note to himself this way: "The most difficult of all political arrangements is that of so adjusting the claims of the two classes [i.e., 'the class with, and the class without property'] as to give security to each, and to promote the welfare of all."(6)
Answer: on the one hand, such a declaration would have openly admitted that the system they were building had a major oligarchic component. That admission would have been unacceptable to many Americans who had just fought the war of independence and who were sharply divided over whether to adopt or reject the constitution proposed by the Founding Fathers.
Indeed, the opponents of the constitution vociferously claimed it would favor the oligarchy. To counter that criticism, Madison put up a brilliant, expedient defense: he, too, vigorously attacked any "pretended oligarchy."
What, according to Madison, would prevent the proposed constitution from favoring any particular class? "I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America -- a spirit which nourished freedom, and in return is nourished by it."(7)
Madison's remark gives the impression that he was a fervent supporter of democracy. However, that was decidedly not the case. The confidence that Madison placed in "the vigilant and manly spirit" of Americans was diametrically opposed to what he asserted in an earlier article:
"In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the scepter from reason. Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob."(8)
On the other hand, then, Madison did not favor a democracy. The American oligarchy would not have accepted it.
Neither an oligarchy nor a democracy, then. And certainly not a "polity."
Enter the "republic." "Republic" was the word the Founding Fathers substituted for "polity."
In going undetected for over 200 years, the switch was one of the greatest political maneuvers of all times.
FOOTNOTES
(1) "First Annual Report of The Arts Council" (1945-1946).
(2) Aristotle, "The Politics of Aristotle," translated and edited by Ernest Barker, Oxford University Press, New York, 1962, p. 186. (Book IV, Chapter XII). Translator's brackets.
(3) "Federalist Papers" 17 and 52.
(4) "Federalist Paper 47."
(5) Montesquieu, "De L'Esprit des lois,"in "Oeuvres completes II," Bibliotheque de la Pleiade, Gallimard, Paris, 1994. p. 411. (Book XI, Chapter XI).
(6) James Madison, "Note 1 in Convention of 1787, August 7th," in Ralph Ketcham, "The Anti-Federalist Papers and The Constitutional Convention Debates," Penguin Books, New York, 1986, p. 151.
(7) "Federalist Paper 57."
(8) "Federalist Paper 55."