Letters from an Ohio Farmer

America's Constitutional Story

To My Fellow Citizens:

We Americans have a constitutional history going back further than we usually think. It is an instructive history. We were a constitutional people long before we became a nation.  For nearly 170 years, England's North American colonists lived and prospered under the English (later British) constitution and thus enjoyed the rights and liberties of Englishmen.  They had colonial charters, of course, and they learned to cherish representative government.  But the wellspring of their rights and liberties, as they understood them, was the English constitution itself.  Unlike our present U.S. Constitution, the English constitution is unwritten.  In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries it was best understood as a set of judicial precedents and institutional arrangements, developed over time, which ensured a balanced government. 

This balance guaranteed that no branch of the government (though they didn’t think in terms of branches the way we do) would become too powerful.  According to the English Whig historical narrative, the Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 expelled the would-be tyrant King James II, elevated Parliament, and thereby preserved English liberty through constitutional balance.  In a late-feudal and early-modern European world of absolute monarchies, English parliamentarians declared that royal power had limits.  Small wonder, then, that England's North American colonists thought themselves the freest people on earth.

But as Americans became more integrated into the British Empire, they came to understand liberty and constitutionalism in ways that differed from their brethren across the Atlantic.  Britain's clumsy efforts to extract revenue from the colonists—stamp taxes, tea taxes, etc.—ignited a great constitutional struggle.  When Parliament claimed the power to make laws for the colonies, America's political leaders met this claim with defiance.  "The true ground on which we declare these acts void," Thomas Jefferson argued, is "that the British parliament has no right to exercise authority over us."  In short, Jefferson and his compatriots declared independence from the British Empire in large part because they realized that the unwritten British constitution meant whatever Parliament said it did. 

Recognizing that an unchecked legislature posed as great a danger to liberty as did an absolute monarch, America's revolutionaries commenced the second act of our constitutional story when they set about drafting written constitutions, including the U.S. Constitution of 1787. History had shown that even in the English-speaking world power and liberty were constantly in tension. 
Societies need their governments to exercise power for the common benefit, but that power requires meaningful limits.  Fully discarding both divine right monarchy and parliamentary sovereignty, America's constitution-makers appealed to the sovereign consent of the people to impose limits on government authority and instruct public officials in what powers they may wield. 

The constitution-makers divided these powers among the three branches and between federal and state jurisdictions. They wrote bills of rights to serve as redundant checks in case any public official forgot the popular source and limited nature of government's powers.  To exercise powers not granted by the people through their written constitutions, Jefferson wrote in 1791, was to "take
possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." In the ensuing decades, America's post-revolutionary statesmen did not always agree on the precise meaning and limits of constitutionally enumerated powers.  Universally, however, they acknowledged a good people's sovereignty channeled through written constitutions as America's salvation from arbitrary rule.

This firm belief in the relationship between liberty, the sovereign people, and enumerated constitutional powers persisted into the twentieth century, when American progressives launched the third act of our constitutional drama.  For more than a hundred years the United States had grown and prospered. Americans built canals and railroads, settled the trans-Mississippi West, and assimilated millions of immigrants. Despite a cataclysmic rebellion and civil war, the Founders' constitutional order survived.  By the early 1900s, however, many came to believe that industrialization and modernization posed challenges for which the Founders' Constitution was inadequate.  National problems, Theodore Roosevelt insisted, required national solutions. 

As I noted in an earlier letter, progressives' belief in the inadequacy of eighteenth-century governments to deal with twentieth-century problems compelled them and especially their intellectual heirs on the political left to adopt a kind of "living" constitutionalism. The U.S. Constitution, they say, is organic; it must evolve as society’s challenges multiply.  It is true that on four separate occasions the first generation of progressives at least had the decency to amend the Constitution.  As they discover more and more "national" problems, however, modern progressives grow impatient with constitutional restraints and the people's sovereignty. They turn more and more readily to virtually lawless government-by-experts. When asked to identify constitutional authority for one or another proposed progressive remedy, they sometimes react with utter astonishment.

There is a strange irony in the name "progressive," for the progressives' "living constitution," in replacing enumerated powers and the sovereignty of the people with the unlimited sovereignty of government, resembles the British constitution we rejected over two centuries ago. The next historic act in America’s constitutional drama is to recover the Founders' Constitution.               

Ohio Farmer

Words and Politics

To the Members of the 112th Congress:

Everyone across the political spectrum has been rightly celebrating the one grace note of the recent protracted battle in Washington over raising the debt ceiling—the moment when Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords appeared on the House floor, still recovering from her grievous wounds, to cast a vote on the climactic legislation. 

Giffords' welcome presence revived discussion of "civility" in our political life, a respectable term that had been deployed in the most uncivil way against raucous Tea Party activists in the moments after Giffords' shooting in January.  Then in the heat of the debt ceiling battle, leading journalists and office holders who have been most sanctimonious about civility called the Tea Party "terrorists." It should go without saying that civility is important to "civil society," but it should be equally noted that a high rhetorical pitch is especially endemic to democratic forms of government that put a premium on serious public argument over essential questions of justice and policy.  There is an opportunity here for the Tea Party to turn this attack on its head, and to break new rhetorical ground in Washington.

The fervency of Tea Party rhetoric about potentially tyrannical government is nothing especially new or different in American politics; nor is there anything new in critics using extreme language to attack the Tea Party's supposed extremism.  John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who first fought each other with extreme bitterness and then conducted one of the most edifying correspondences between statesmen in human history, might well find the current discussion of civility in politics to be frivolous and unserious.  Jefferson's supporters charged Adams with wanting to refasten British monarchy on America, while Adams' supporters alleged that Jefferson's election would mean the importation of the French guillotine and the blood of revolutionary terror running through every American town. 

Our tender censors of political discourse would exhaust their vocabulary of outrage if faced with the harshness of public discourse at earlier periods of our history, not to mention the ways the hot tempers of political argument spilled over into actual violence.  The famous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr was a rare but not unheard of thing in the early years of our republic; as nastily as our politicians can speak today, at least no one has been assaulted in a Capitol chamber like Senator Charles Sumner in 1856, when Rep. Preston Brooks beat Sumner savagely with a cane in the heat of the bitter debate over the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  Nor have we seen mobs descending on newspaper offices and shooting editors as occurred in Alton, Illinois in the famous case of Elijah Lovejoy in 1837—the event which inspired the teaching of Lincoln's first great speech at the Young Men’s Lyceum the following year.

It may not simply be a lack of historical perspective, however, that has led to the current focus on civility in politics.  There is no doubt that changes in modern mass media have amplified our political discord.  In two generations we have gone from a media world of mostly print and radio to 24-hour television news and the always-on, unfiltered anarchy of the Internet.  Perhaps this may amount to a qualitative change in the effect of political rhetoric, just as the invention of movable type 500 years ago was a socially and politically disruptive mass media technology.  Like movable type and cheap books five centuries ago, our all-encompassing high tech mass media world is here to stay.  As the kids say, deal with it.

There is one aspect of political rhetoric, however, that office holders have within their power to change, and that change might help remove the sense many citizens have that our political class is remote from us.  When elected officials arrive in Washington, they very quickly pick up a way of talking that is not found in any other walk of life.  It comes in two forms.  First is the language of "comity," the way in which our senators and representatives habitually refer to their bitter political opponents as "my good friend from the great state of Colorado," and so forth.  In a few cases, this language expresses a true friendship across party lines, but it is usually a lie, and everyone watching on C-SPAN knows it is a lie. 

This language probably is an import from the British parliamentary procedure of referring to the "right honorable gentleman from Blaby," or some other specific constituency, in the House of Commons debates, but the formality of assuming honor in one's opponents is a different thing than asserting friendship where none exists.  This language of comity probably serves a useful purpose in keeping political discourse more temperate, but why not drop the pretence and use more neutral language—"the representative from New Jersey," "the senator from New Mexico," even "the honorable representative from New Jersey"?

Second, elected officials in Washington always lapse quickly into a Capitol Hill jargon that subtly reinforces some bad tendencies of modern government in ways that are almost unnoticed, but which contribute to the peoples' dislike of our political class.  Members of the House, in particular, speak of "my constituents" back home in the district.  But speaking of your fellow citizens as "constituents" abets the notion that your primary job is to pry as many goodies from Washington as you can for your "constituents." If the Tea Party caucus really wants to mark themselves out as a different kind of political force, they should think about banishing the term "constituents," and instead speak of citizens—a term which emphasizes our political equality.  (By the way, like the "right honorable gentleman" usage, this particular formulation is also an import from Britain, and it conveys the sense that our elected officials are our masters more than our representatives.)

In a similar vein, Tea Party caucus members should try not to use Capitol Hill jargon, which most members, especially new ones, adopt to convey the air of insider-sophistication.  Some of the special terms of art on Capitol Hill, like "budget reconciliation" and so forth, are unavoidable, but other phrases could benefit from Chruchill's rule of linguistic simplification.  For example, don’t speak of using an "expedited process" to consider budget issues; instead, say "fast track." Then the fact that nothing is ever fast in Congress will be revealed with some embarrassment for the process-oriented insiders.

If Tea Partiers actually speak differently as well as thinking differently, it will mark them out even more as a reforming force in Washington.  And if they do that, their critics will continue to call them names, mostly short, non-jargony names that are easy to make out.  That will be another sign of their impact.

Ohio Farmer

A Decent Respect

To the Members of the 112^th Congress:

Following the killing of Osama bin Laden on the orders of the President of the United States, some prominent European politicians, clerics, and journalists condemned the act. Americans, many of whom continue publicly to applaud bin Laden’s death, were likened to “Muslims celebrating in the Gaza Strip” following the attacks on America on September 11, 2001. What should Americans think of such criticisms? How, more generally, should we regard the opinions of the peoples and governments of other nations?

To take the second question first, the natural American place to begin a response seems to be with the Declaration that announced our independence to the world in 1776, a declaration that was offered out of “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind,” which “requires that [Americans] should declare the causes which impel them to the separation [from Great Britain].” Declaring the causes of our actions—giving reasons for them—was an act of respect for the opinions of mankind because it treated mankind as if their opinions could respond to reasons. This was a hopeful view of the human condition. It did honor to human nature and imposed expectations on human capacities.

The central idea proclaimed in the declaration—the main reason for our action—was the self evident truth that “all men are created equal,” that is, that all men everywhere and at all times possess by nature equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, this was an idea that seemed self-evidently untrue to the hereditary monarchs and nobility of Europe. So America showed its first respect for the opinions of mankind by disagreeing with most of them!—and in the same breath telling the peoples of the world how they might show greater respect for themselves, by recognizing and asserting the rights of their own humanity. 

Americans were keenly aware how difficult it would be to live up to the principle they were proclaiming—how heroic and continuous an effort would be required of themselves or any people that aspired to rise to equality. This very difficulty is partly what makes it such an “honorable determination  . . . to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.”  As I have written in an earlier letter, “Any people that wished to be free, including the Americans, would have to demonstrate this capacity for themselves, and continue to demonstrate it each generation.”  What could be more honorable to human nature? What could show greater respect to mankind and their opinions?

The American experiment claims to be a glorious experiment because it aims, for the first time in human history, to make actual the potential for self government that we Americans insist human beings have by nature. This is what the founders meant when they soberly—and by no means arrogantly—reflected on the fact that it seems to have been reserved to “the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice.”

The greatest respect Americans can show for the opinions of mankind is to take responsibility for being the kind of self governing people we invite all people to be. Taking such responsibility may require, in the sometimes hard course of human events, the killing of the bin Ladens of this world. As I said in my last letter, our men who killed bin Laden were “armed above all with the authority of the people of the United States.  That is what dignified their violence and distinguished it from the brutality authored by their target.” How can the “authority of the people”—us—dignify such an act, raise it above the barbarism and savagery of bin Laden and all who support him and cheer him on? Only, I think, if “we the people” are the people we claimed to be, insisted on being, at our beginning—a people claiming the right to govern ourselves, as we proclaim and respect the same right for all other human beings; a people doing everything in our power to cultivate in ourselves the capacities necessary to vindicate this natural human right.  

Such a people will conduct themselves so that an attack upon them could never in truth be said to be a blessing to mankind; so that if they are compelled to some harsh measure like the killing of bin Laden, the world may truly be said to be better off because of it.  Such a people will arrange the political affairs of their land so that no one could with justice wish for the displacement of their rule by that of an enemy.  They will be neither self-aggrandizing nor self-sacrificing.  They will approach the world, in Washington’s words, as their "interest, guided by justice, shall counsel."

Such a people will understand that politics, though it must sometimes resort to harsh necessities like the killing of bin Ladens, is in the final analysis not reducible to such necessities.  Even Sun Tzu, that great teacher of the art of war, understood that "[t]hose who excel in war [must] first cultivate their own humanity and justice," that war is conducted ultimately for the sake of peace.  Closer to home, our own John Adams offered his American version of that human wisdom, when he reflected , “I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy.” The successful practice of the arts of necessity—which are forced upon us by the needs of mere life—seems to be a necessary condition for the flourishing of the arts of freedom—which we pursue because they prepare us to deserve, by using well, "the blessings of liberty."

What about the more particular question, about American rejoicings at the killing of bin Laden? Of course, no self-respecting, self-governing people will condone dancing in the street to celebrate cruel necessities. Nor would it be a proud moment for such a people to make these cruel necessities applause lines in campaign rallies. But only a good people—a people able to take responsibility for choosing right over wrong—can be a self-governing people, and the world will be a sad place when good people can no longer rejoice at the triumph, however small and incomplete, of good over evil.

Ohio Farmer

America and the World

To the Members of the 112th Congress:

America, on the president’s orders, has intervened militarily in Libya; the president has given a speech explaining the intervention and the manner of it; the country and the world debate the matter as events unfold; the outcome remains uncertain.  In his speech, the president insisted that, because the Libyan people faced "the prospect of violence on a horrific scale," America had a responsibility to act. "To brush aside...our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are.” 

These letters are particularly concerned with “who we are” as a people and what this requires of our politics, domestic and foreign. So I leave aside for now the many other interesting and important questions swirling around the president’s words and deeds, including his deference to the United Nations and his neglect of the United States Congress. 

What does “who we are” tell us about how we should act toward the rest of the world? The president doesn’t say much about what it is that makes us who we are, though he seems now to be affirming, on behalf of our fellow human beings, a kind of American exceptionalism, about which he had been studiously ambiguous in the past. We might begin to think about who we are by considering the two most important ideas in American political life.  The first is found in the Declaration of Independence, which was cited in the last letter and will surely be cited often in future letters—the idea that “all men are created equal.” The second is derived from this idea and is found in the opening phrase of the Constitution: it is the idea of consent expressed in the familiar words, “We the People of the United States.”  These are words and ideas, not to conjure with, but to consider carefully as events demand our attention and action at home and abroad. As long as Americans are Americans, these ideas will certainly continue to be essential ingredients of who we are. So what do they tell us about us? 

The immediate practical purpose of the Declaration was to establish the right of the colonists to separate from the British Empire and its hereditary monarchy.  In this case, declaring all men equal meant that God did not give one man or his family a divine right to rule other men.  Human equality meant that government derived its powers justly only from “the consent of the governed.”  The claim that men were equal meant that not the accident of birth but the deliberate consent of men—“We the People”— was the only rightful basis for government. 

The Declaration had a larger purpose, a broader reach, than the dispute between Great Britain and the United States of America.  Its declaration of human equality denied not only a right to rule based on birth but a right to rule based on race or religion.  Declaring all men equal meant that a common humanity was more fundamental than the accidents of race or religion that separated human beings.  

The universality of this founding principle explains something of the claim the world has on American sympathies.  Having based our national life on the equality of all men, we recognize that in principle any human being is a potential citizen of the United States. We feel an affinity with people around the world, especially those struggling for freedom or stricken by natural or manmade disasters.  In our common humanity, we believe somehow that our hopes and fortunes are tied to theirs.  These feelings can give rise to a sense of obligation that seems to be what President Obama has in mind—our “responsibilities to our fellow human beings,” which he invokes when he says it would be a betrayal of who we are if we didn’t intervene in the way he chose to do in Libya. 

But in fact, of course, only Americans are American citizens.  Our revolution began with a universal claim about human equality, but it culminated necessarily in the establishment of a particular nation.  “We the People of the United States” are distinct from the other peoples of the world not by birth, race, or religion, but by the deliberate act of establishing ourselves as a different people.  By this act of consent, the people of the United States committed themselves to each other, as distinct from all the others who live outside the bond of citizenship.  In a world where freedom was scarce and tyranny commonplace (a world, in this respect, very like the one in which we continue to abide), we committed ourselves to establishing our own freedom and preserving the blessings of liberty in the United States, not to assisting the democratic aspirations of others or their recovery from disaster, however sympathetic we may be to the plight of our fellow men and however eager we may be to help them. 

No model or mathematical formula can help us strike the proper balance between what we owe to our fellow men and what we owe to ourselves.  Such balance is a matter for judgment and deliberation, as circumstances arise.  This judgment will take into account the diverging claims of equality and consent, the former what Americans share with other peoples, the latter how we distinguished ourselves from them.  These two American principles temper each other as we deliberate about how we as a people should act in a dangerous world of potential fellow citizens. 

Our deliberations will be well served by reflecting that the American founders thought the best thing Americans could do for the rest of the world was to succeed in our own experiment in freedom. As the founders thought of it, the American cause—the cause of liberty— is the cause of mankind.  If we could show by the success of our experiment that free government could be good government, this would be the greatest gift Americans could give to their fellow human beings—our own political well being would be a constant act of philanthropy.  America’s success would be cause for all men to rejoice. By the same token, failure of the American experiment in freedom would “deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.”  

From this point of view, Americans should want to know how our intervention in Libya enhances the prospects of the American experiment. If it does, the world will be a better place. If it doesn’t, it betrays America’s primary responsibility to our fellow human beings.

Ohio Farmer