Is America too big?

While visiting one of my favorite blogs, I ran across a post by John Carey at Conservative Hideout titled “A Spoonful of Federalism” which reminded me of a post that I had written awhile ago. In “A Spoonful of Federalism,” John alluded to the fact that the federal government has been able to use the 17th amendment– which changed the way senators were chosen from being appointed by the state legislatures to being directly elected by the people– to diminish the power of the states and increase the power of the federal government.

In my post from last year– Is America too big?– I made the argument that America has been slowly changing from the republic that the founders envisioned, into a democracy– a form of government that the founders feared almost as much as monarchy, and that this was partly due to the 17th amendment.

Our premises are slightly different, but John’s post made me revisit mine, and I have decided to re-post it today with a few slight revisions. At the end of this post I have decided to include the video that John used in his post, it is Fred Thompson talking about classic federalism.

So without further ado:

Is America too big?

That is a question that has lingered in my mind for about a year now. When I ask the question I am not asking if America is too big in terms of influence around the world, and I am not asking if America is too powerful, but rather I am asking if America is too big physically, have we outgrown our government? I am talking about whether the federal government can properly and effectively govern a population of this size. The country was much smaller when our form of government was instituted and surely while the founders probably believed that America would consist of most of North America before too long, could they have possibly understood how big America would turn out?

Surely Thomas Jefferson understood that America would someday extend from sea to sea as he broke with his anti-federalist beliefs (anti-federalist as redefined in a brilliant political move by Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, John Jay, and other proponents of the constitution during the constitutional debates while trying to gain support for a national government– anti-nationalist would probably be more accurate, as Thomas Jefferson would probably be considered a federalist under the classic definition of federalism) as president in order to more than double the size of the country with the Louisiana purchase. An act that he believed exceeded his authority as president and he believed was unconstitutional, but an offer too good to pass up.

This is a topic that I find myself extremely conflicted on. While I consider myself a constitutionalist and an originalist, I also consider myself a states rights advocate, these two ideals at times are at odds with each other. I have thought about writing this post many times in the past and have actually started it twice only to abandon the post, but now I am going to attempt to write it once again.

There is one form of government that many of the founders feared almost as much as monarchy and that was democracy (I will explain below), that is why our original form of government after the revolution was a confederacy of states with really no federal government to speak of. When it became obvious to all that the confederacy was doomed to fail, it was also realized that a more powerful form of a central government was needed.

The founders believed that a democracy was a good form of government for small nations (or states) but not so good when it came to a nation of bigger proportions. How could a large nation govern in the best interest of all its people across the nation? What might be considered a good idea for California residents may not be what is best for Texas residents, what is right for Wisconsin residents may not be what is best for New Hampshire residents and so on.

This is why the founders took great pains to set up a republic during the constitutional convention and not a democracy. The founders feared a nation where 51 Americans out of every 100 could force their beliefs on the other 49 Americans. They considered this a different form of tyranny– the tyranny of the majority– but tyranny nonetheless. Many of the founders, Thomas Jefferson included, feared a strong central government. The delegates to the constitutional convention went to great extents to limit the federal government and provide checks and balances.

The founders took great pains to ensure during the constitutional convention that the states would maintain influence. Until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1913, United States senators were chosen by the different states, not elected by the people. While the representatives were chosen directly by the people to represent them, the senators were chosen by the states to represent the state’s best interests. Because the state officials were elected by the voters, and they subsequently chose the senators, the people indirectly elected the senators. This gave the states a voice in congress, while the people’s voice was heard from the representatives.

After the 17th amendment was ratified the people became more represented by the senators than did the individual states. The people now directly elected the senators thereby weakening the influence that the individual states had, leading to a more nationalized form of government.

I wonder if we would have been better off if the 17th amendment had never been ratified. It sometimes seems to me as if the 17th amendment may have done more to change the form of government from the republican model to the democratic model– a model that many founders feared– than anything else.

However, having the states choose the senators probably meant that the states would have too much influence over the people of their states. Therefor, giving this power to the people under this premise could not have been a bad idea. Again, I am conflicted, there must other reasons why the people have lost control of the government.

This brings me back around to my belief that the federal government has grown bigger than many of the founders had hoped, and even bigger than many of them had feared could happen.

From George Washington– whose opponents claimed had too much power and was trampling the constitution– to John Adams; who signed the Alien and Sedition act, and jailed people for simply speaking out against the federal government (a clear violation of the constitution); to Abraham Lincoln, who expanded government control and jailed his opponents; to Woodrow Wilson and FDR, both of whom grew the federal government and reached a level of government intervention never before seen or dreamed of by the founders; to Teddy Roosevelt who went after private businesses, virtually every president has grown the influence of the federal government. Both sides of the aisle, for different reasons, have seen fit to expand the government to fit their agenda. Some of these presidents may have been justified and morally correct to do what they did, but in the end they expanded the influence of the federal government and diminished the rights of the individual states. When is the last time that the government has actually gotten smaller?

It seems that over the years, as the federal government has expanded, we have drifted away from a representative republican form of government, to more of a democracy. This doesn’t seem to have happened because of the constitution, but in spite of it. That is how I am able to balance my two beliefs; the first being my belief as a constitutional originalist and the second; my belief in states rights. It isn’t that the constitution has failed us as a founding document, it is that the federal government has failed us in following the constitution.

So, to answer my original question, has America become too big? I don’t think that America as a country has become too big but rather America the government has become too big. As the country grew, the answer was not to expand the role of the federal government, but rather to make sure that people were better represented at the local (state) level. It is much easier to govern the people at a local level than a national level, the founders understood this, and we need to return to this. If more power was returned to the local level, the people would have more power to control the government which is supposed to work for them. This is what the founders intended, and this is what is vital to the American form of government, a republican form of government.

When the constitutional convention was over, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what they had given us, he famously replied, ” a republic if you can keep it.”

I am afraid that we have lost it.