In my previous column, I noted that the Constitution of the United States was initially very controversial. Opponents feared it gave far too much power to the federal government and nearly blocked its ratification.

Today, the great document is revered by most Americans, but there is growing opposition to our Constitutional system. The 21st century opposition comes from the opposite direction: Progressives believe “rigid adherence to past versions of limited government (must) be discarded.” They want a far more powerful federal government and governing bureaucracy.

It’s important to recognize that the progressive challenge to the Constitution is not merely about the size of government. It’s not about how much money they want to spend on new government programs. Whenever sustainable and broad public support is found for such programs, these “big government” views can easily be accommodated within the Constitutional structure.

That wouldn’t surprise the founders of our nation at all. They clearly understood that the power of government could sometimes be used to further the public good.

But the founders also recognized that there was another reality to consider. As James Madison put it in Federalist 41, any “power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion that may be misapplied and abused.” Their struggle to find the right balance was eloquently expressed by Madison in Federalist 51:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

The problem, simply put, is human nature. If you give someone power, sooner or later it will have a corrupting influence on them.

The solution arrived at in our Constitution was to create a powerful government, but to separate its powers so no one person or faction could wield that power alone. There would be checks and balances throughout the system, a precaution Madison viewed as “necessary to control the abuses of government.”

The Madisonian system of checks and balances has served our nation well, but it is deeply frustrating to many progressives today. From the progressive perspective, Constitutional checks and balances represent a messy and inefficient process that blocks decisive government action.

Their analysis is correct.

It’s embarrassing at times when the separation of powers is displayed in a public spat between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Donald Trump. Disheartening as such displays may be, the ugly competition prevents either from unilaterally imposing their views on the nation. That’s what Madison had in mind when he wrote that “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

Progressives are also right that our system of checks and balances can be inefficient. Congress and the president often disagree. So do the House and Senate. And then the courts get involved. Sometimes there are challenges from state governments. The entire process slows things down and generates more modest results.

Much to the chagrin of progressives, that’s the whole idea. The messiness and inefficiency are features not bugs. Because government power can be used for both good and evil, the Constitution requires leaders to build a broad public consensus before that power can be unleashed.

For those who want more government power unleashed, that is a fundamental problem with our Constitution. A pair of law professors from Harvard and Chicago — Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule — believe concern about checks and balances stems from an irrational American “fear of dictatorship.” They call it “tyrannophobia” and are upset that such attitudes were “reflected in the Declaration of Independence and founding debates.”

Not surprisingly, these scholars dismiss Madison’s system as an irrelevant “historical curiosity.” What concerns them is not a fear that government power will be abused. Instead, they worry that lingering “tyrannophobia” is preventing our nation from turning over enough power to presidents and bureaucrats.

It is hard to imagine a more fundamental rejection of our Constitutional order.

Scott Rasmussen is an American political analyst and digital media entrepreneur. He is the author of “The Sun is Still Rising: Politics Has Failed But America Will Not.”