|
Best Government in Existence?
Is the U.S. form of government "the best existing, or that
ever did exist"?;
Does its system of "checks and balances" produce strength-or contentiousness?
by Cecil E.. Maranville
With all the imperfections of our present government, it is without comparison
the best existing, or that ever did exist," wrote Thomas Jefferson to Edward
Carrington in 1787 (Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government, ©
1995-2022, by Eyler Robert Coates, Sr., ME 6:227). Now 213 years later, the 2000
presidential election process afforded a test of that lofty claim. Is the U.S. form
of government really "the best existing, or that ever did exist"?;
Leaders who answer to no one have it easier than leaders in a democratic republic.
Interviewed by the press after meeting with partisan leaders of Congress, President-elect
George W. Bush commented that he would not want to live in a dictatorship-"unless
I was the dictator," he quipped!
|
"Those who wil come after us will be as wise as we
are, and as able to take careof themselves as we have been" - Thomas Jefferson
|
But, despots are easily corrupted. History is replete with the biographies of kingly
leaders who were corrupt either before their coronation or were corrupted in time
by the cheers of their subjects. Setting aside for the moment the despots who have
forced the hands of their citizens together in applause, even well intentioned, democratic
leaders have also fallen prey to the praise of those who surround them. Too easily,
they begin to rate themselves more highly than they should.
Enter the American model of government. (By "American," I mean U.S.-apologies
to Canada, Central and South America!)
"The Founding Fathers knew well the kind of government they were trying to avoid,
but could only project what their own experiment in government would become. They
based this projection on their analysis of governments in the past, on principles
derived from natural rights, and on an assessment of the nature of man" (ibid.,
Introduction).
Looking forward along the annals of time, Jefferson forecast, "Those who will
come after us will be as wise as we are, and as able to take care of themselves as
we have been" (Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1811, ibid.
ME 13:40). Have the present leaders and citizens fulfilled his optimistic prophecy?
Let's first consider how the U.S. founding fathers constructed the U.S. governmental
structure.
Checks and balances
Theoretically, each of the three branches of government in the United States "checks"
or restrains the other two. An executive (the president) administers and enforces
laws that are made by the legislature (the House of Representatives and Senate).
A court (the ultimate being the Supreme) speaks to the legitimacy of executive policies,
based upon law, and the validity of new legislation, based upon the Constitution.
The hypothesis continues with the premise that every branch strengthens the other's
performance. The mutual strengthening lies in the fact that no one branch is permitted
to do the tasks of all three: create and administer law, as well as respond to challenges
about both law and its administration. The system acknowledges the founders' assumption
that any person or group of people vested with overly much power would become despotic.
A given division of the government that performs questionably in the discharge of
its responsibility would face challenges by the other two. Thereby, orders, propositions
and rulings would be made stronger than they would be if their issuers answered to
no one. It's at least a partial application of the biblical proverb, "Iron sharpens
iron" (Proverbs 27:17).
In idealistic terms, the ultimate authority of the U.S. government, the force that
could and would stop all abuses of power, is its citizenry. The Electoral College
chooses the president. How the college members vote is determined by popular vote
in each state (not by the popular vote nationwide, as many were reminded in the daily
civics lessons associated with the recent election contest). Members of the Congress
are selected by popular vote, based upon a formula that was designed to insure a
stable government. The president appoints members of the Supreme Court for life,
but the Senate must confirm each appointee.
The American press evolved over the centuries into a "fourth branch of government,"
often called "the Fourth Estate," taking on the role of holding the nation's
leaders to an honest commitment to the constitutional responsibility each occupies.
(The media did not always enjoy the freedom and power it now notably wields. Once,
in frustrated anger over the Washington press corps, President Jefferson had every
member of it jailed over a weekend! How times have changed!) Ostensibly, the media
is made up of "the people" and furthers the objectives of the U.S. founders.
So, it is ultimately the people's government. Common citizens can question the highest
officials of the land. The sought-after result is a nation whose citizens would enjoy
the greatest possible freedoms to pursue their personal goals.
Government of, by and for the people
Jefferson extolled the foundational role of the citizenry in a private letter
to Richard Price in 1785. "The happiness of governments like ours wherein the
people are truly the mainspring is that they are never to be despaired of. When an
evil becomes so glaring as to strike them generally, they arouse themselves, and
it is redressed. He only is then the popular man and can get into office who shows
the best dispositions to reform the evil" (ibid., Papers, 7:630).
President Lincoln, in his renowned Gettysburg address, intoned, "...we here
highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain-that this nation, under
God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government of the people, by the
people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Has the United States been able to fulfill this noble, idyllic aim? As charges and
countercharges were fired back and forth during the recent postelection challenges
in the United States, many reporters observed that at least it was words, not lead,
being fired. To be sure, this is good! The country's politicians lauded themselves
that they resolved their disputes peacefully.
Did they? I referred to Proverbs 27:17 above, noting the sense of "iron sharpens
iron" imbedded in early American thought. The rest of that verse reads, "so
a man sharpens the countenance of his friend." That is, challenges made
with respect to people who are honored can engender better decisions, better thought,
better policies. However, hostile opposition and rivalry will only reinforce a party
spirit-as postelection events have demonstrated.
Thomas Jefferson wrote: "We have no interests nor passions different from those
of our fellow citizens. We have the same object: the success of representative government.
Nor are we acting for ourselves alone, but for the whole human race. The event of
our experiment is to show whether man can be trusted with self-government.
The eyes of suffering humanity are fixed on us with anxiety as their only hope, and
on such a theatre, for such a cause, we must suppress all smaller passions and local
considerations" (Thomas Jefferson to Gov. Hall, 1802, ibid.).
More selfish than selfless
Has the United States demonstrated that "man can be trusted with self-government"?;
What began as the world's best answer to despotism has become a complex tangle of
conflicting interest. Presidents "legislate" by executive order, bypassing
the lawmakers. President Clinton used this avenue to place thousands of acres into
national parks, without going through legislative channels. Many conservatives already
are calling on the incoming Bush administration to issue countermanding executive
orders to rescind the Clinton directives.
Legislators have their own "creative" means of getting their way, by adding
non sequitur amendments to critical bills. For example, a congressman may write an
amendment that authorizes several thousand dollars to be paid to someone in his district
for the study of methane gas produced by cattle manure (seriously!). He would then
add that amendment to a crucial highway appropriations bill that has passed committee
debate and is ready to go to the president for his signature.
Activist courts go beyond interpreting the law, adding precepts to existing statutes.
For example, the U.S. Supreme Court, not the Congress, mandated busing. Vermont had
no law acknowledging same-sex relationships, but the Vermont Supreme Court ruled
that such "couples" were entitled to the same benefits as married couples.
The legislature felt obliged, with the encouragement of the governor, to respond
by creating the infamous civil union law. A more recent example of an activist court
is the Florida Supreme Court, whose justices added new election law in the course
of interpreting existing law. Another example of judicial activism is the action
of the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided the presidential election.
Nothing human could be perfect
"Perfect human government" is an oxymoron, for nothing "human"
could be "perfect." Truthfully, Americans themselves make no claim that
their government is perfect, but they often assert that it is "the best possible"
form of government. We've already noted several imperfections. Breaking down the
U.S. system further, we see more.
That ambiguous entity, "the White House" is synonymous with the presidency
at the same time as it affords an illusory anonymity. "White House sources"
attempt to mold and shape public opinion, amplifying the influence of the executive
branch of government. An "unofficial" call from the White House, asking
for consideration for a certain person or project conveys a weighty endorsement in
itself.
The Congress is comprised of liberals, moderates and conservatives principally of
the two major political parties, Democrats and Republicans. Each one theoretically
represents his constituency, his ideological allies in both parties, his own party,
his own conscience and his personal political ambitions for reelection or for higher
office-at the same time! Additionally, congressmen respond to professional lobbyists
who seek legislation favorable to their private interests.
Courts theoretically are made up of men and women who are not ideologues, but rather
"pure" jurists who seek to adjudicate the law and the Constitution. The
Supreme Court justices typify the "supreme" jurist-in theory, anyway. In
practice, students of the high court know that the justices are selected for the
bench, in part, on the basis of their personal ideology. Why else would people pose
the oft-asked question of the presidential candidates: "Would you nominate a
pro-life or pro-choice judge for the Supreme Court?" Further, many justices
have been blatant about pursuing their personal political convictions at every possible
turn.
Jefferson's prayer
Thomas Jefferson said he prayed that selfishness of the few would not obstruct
serving the needs of the many. "A government regulating itself by what is wise
and just for the many, uninfluenced by the local and selfish views of the few who
direct their affairs, has not been seen, perhaps, on earth. Or if it existed for
a moment at the birth of ours, it would not be easy to fix the term of its continuance.
Still, I believe it does exist here in a greater degree than anywhere else; and for
its growth and continuance...I offer sincere prayers" (Thomas Jefferson to William
H. Crawford, 1816, ibid., ME 15:31).
His prayer might have been answered for a time, or it simply may have taken time
for the innate selfishness of human nature to permeate the U.S. system. Either way,
selfishness is more evident than cooperation for the common good. Even those who
proudly claim "the system works" would not be so naïve as to posture
that its participants act unselfishly.
The perception of the U.S. founders about the corruptibility of human nature truly
was insightful, and the model of government they devised has been remarkably successful.
However, Americans would be remiss to take undue credit for their triumph, given
the state of their government's inherent divisiveness. It is to the credit of God's
will and mercy that the country has endured so long.
If the U.S. form of government is truly "the best existing, or that ever did
exist" and if the "eyes of suffering humanity are fixed on" the United
States as its only hope, then the future of humanity is bleak indeed. Such a claim
likely sounds patriotic to its citizens and, perhaps, self-congratulatory to other
world citizens, but it actually is a presumptuous assertion.
Nonetheless, an answer to Jefferson's prayer will come-not in the way that he expected.
The best is yet to come in the form of the government of God, which Christ will soon
establish over the world. He alone will rule with unselfishness. His government will
not be "of the people, by the people" for no human government
could achieve what a government should accomplish. But, His government truthfully
will be "for the people."
Of this perfect government, Isaiah prophesied, "And the Spirit of the Lord shall
rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel and might; the Spirit
of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord. His delight will be obedience to the Lord.
He will not judge by appearance, false evidence or hearsay, but will defend the poor
and the exploited. He will rule against the wicked who oppress them. For he will
be clothed with fairness and with truth" (Isaiah 11:2-4, The Living Bible).
wnp
© 2001 United Church of God, an International Association
|
