We often hear that the United States is a democracy, and even used to hear it was the world’s best. That would have come as a surprise to the delegates in Philadelphia in 1787 who blamed the problems under the Articles of Confederation on an excess of democracy in the states. In the depression that followed the Revolution, states tried to aid their citizens by passing debt relief measures including paper money and stays on debt payments.
The financial elite, North and South, decided that they needed to establish a stronger federal government to restrain state-level democracies and protect creditors. Therefore, they wrote into the Constitution a provision that blocked the states from enacting debt relief. Article 1.10 prohibits the states from issuing paper money or passing any “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” They went further, setting up a mixed regime at the federal level. A mixed regime is one with both democratic and oligarchic elements, although the delegates preferred to call the latter “aristocratic” checks on democracy. Oligarchs usually do.
The chief democratic element of the Constitution is the direct election of members of the House of Representatives. It was the popular element in the federal government. The delegates placed numerous oligarchic checks on the House. First, they established a Senate to temper any democratic excesses in the House. Election by state legislatures and longer terms were meant to produce a more aristocratic Senate. The delegates established an Electoral College because they did not trust the people directly to elect the president. They allowed for life-time tenure for federal judges to keep them above politics—that is beyond democratic control.
Over and over, the delegates described the Senate, President, and Judiciary as checks on democracy. In Federalist 63, Madison explained that the Senate would serve “as a defence to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.” George Mason argued that a presidential veto was required to protect against the type of “unjust and pernicious laws” that the states had passed (Farrand v. 2, 78). Gouverneur Morris noted that any improper state laws “will be set aside in the Judiciary” (Farrand v. 2, 28).
The result is that the Constitution is a strongly oligarchic mix. It has numerous and powerful checks on democratic action. Democratic reforms require super-majorities and have been infrequent in United States history. Such super majorities emerged during Reconstruction, in the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society.
Political lessons from the mixed system include:
1) The filibuster is unnecessary. The oligarchs already have plenty of protections in the Constitution. They don’t need another.
2) If progressives want to accomplish real reform, we cannot afford merely to garner small majorities in elections. We need sizable majorities. Barely over 50% majorities will not overcome the oligarchic checks. Remember that Obama had 60 votes in the Senate when Obamacare passed.
3) With both parties dependent on large, wealthy donors, the DailyKos and other sites have been critical to overcoming the oligarchs’ electoral advantage by supporting more progressive Democrats. The Progressive Caucus is now up to 103 members in the House, giving progressives many more better Democrats than just a few years ago.
4) The last time a Democrat won over 53% of the popular vote in a presidential election was 1964. It was also the year that Republicans started making race a national issue. Democrats need to overcome the racial divisions in America to build the majorities they need to enact substantive change. But that is the subject for another day.