Report

American Enterprise Institute

Key Points

Recent impeachment controversies emphasize the competing views of representation in a republic—encapsulated by the delegate and trustee models.

As both a first-rank political philosopher and an enlightened practitioner of republican government, James Madison can help shed light on these disputes through his theory and statecraft on how politicians should represent the people.

Madison’s extensive efforts to enact the Bill of Rights demonstrate how he sought to reflect the best elements of public opinion for the good of the nation, effectively merging the delegate and trustee models.

Contemporary statesmen can learn valuable, practical lessons from Madison’s example.

Read the PDF.

Introduction

Politics today is caught between antipodal trends. In 2010, a populist movement sprung forth from the heartland, demanding better representation of voters’ views in government. This uprising culminated in the election of Donald Trump, whose administration has in turn inspired a kind of elite counterrevolution that demands a return to a more erudite and sophisticated style of public administration. These contrasting views were on full display during the recent impeachment hearings in the House of Representatives. Lifelong bureaucrats blasted the president’s unusual policymaking style, while the president and his allies adamantly maintained that his efforts were in response to deep state bureaucrats opposing the will of the people.

This conflict seems to be little more than another frustrating example of modern America’s hyper-partisanship, with little lasting insight or value for American republicanism. Yet a closer look at the battle between Trump and his opponents reveals an ancient conflict between competing values of representation: Are representatives of the people delegates or trustees? Advocates of the president appear to emphasize the delegate model. Trump is the choice of the people, and he is doing what the people want. However, Trump’s opponents disdain his coarse tone and bad administrative practices. They emphasize that a representative’s job is to be a steward or trustee of the public interest, above simply reflecting the vagaries of public opinion.

Of course, this is not how the president’s partisan advocates or opponents explicitly frame their contest. If roles were reversed, Republicans would be arguing exactly what Democrats are now. Yet for those who are interested in thinking through the bigger questions of government—specifically with an eye to how the polity shall function after the current occupant of the White House has left—the delegate versus trustee debate remains relevant for a republic such as the United States. All authority, after all, is bottomed solely on the people. So, what in practice does that require of a legislator, a president, or even a bureaucrat? Must they be mere vessels of the public’s views, or may they exercise their own independent judgment?

The answer, of course, lies somewhere in the middle. But where, specifically? For that, we might turn to the political theory and practice of James Madison. Not only did the celebrated “father of the Constitution” leave behind writings that can help us understand the obligations of the republican statesman, but his work on a specific issue—the Bill of Rights—can also illustrate practical ways to blend the delegate and trustee models of representation.

Read the full report.