Overnight essay for school. It was a critical analysis of an article by this Hofstadter dewd.
I posted it because I think most Americans don't even know the difference between the Declaration of Indep. and the Constitution.
By 1787, flaws in the Articles of Confederations policy towards a centralized government were obvious (Princeton Review 91); a new constitution was needed. For four months in 1787, a group of fifty-five delegates met in Philadelphia and discussed and authored our now-ratified constitution. In Richard Hofstadters Founding Fathers: An Age of Realism, he brings to examination the anti-democratic political ideology of these delegates and how this formed the constitution that Americans are seemingly so unfamiliar with today.
Before delving into explanations, Hofstadter establishes his thesis and the fundamental principle in these delegates ideology: To them a human being was an atom of self-interest. They did not believe in man, but they did believe in the power of a good political constitution to control him. (Hofstadter 4). In essence, the Founding Fathers thought that mans self interest, or even the interest of a majority, must be mitigated with government, as a majority of men, let alone one, do not have the hindsight to know what is best for the whole.
It was the Founding Fathers belief that liberty should lay in the hands of those who have stake in it. As Hofstadter further defines their intended definition of liberty, liberty was linked not to democracy but to property. (Hofstadter 13). Thus, although these two seemingly parallel concepts in the modern-day Americans mind, the Founding Fathers would think a democratic republic to be an oxymoron. Hofstadter made it clear that the Founding Fathers believed that in owning property, you thereby have a greater stake in the hand of decisions of government. This may well be an explanation to the Declaration of Independences famous all men are created equal line. As all men are created equal, not all are worthy enough to be affected by laws regarding the freedom for property.
Given their fundamental ideologies, they may be susceptible, or even favorable to moving towards a government similar to the British model they just broke away from; however, this assumption would be the furthest from the truth: What the Fathers wanted was known as balanced government. (Hofstadter 10). They did not wish to act as the only important constituent, but rather, as Hofstadter eloquently put it, A properly designed state, the Fathers believed, would check interest with interest, class with class, faction with faction, and one branch of government with another in a harmonious system of mutual frustration. (Hofstadter 10). This meant that they had to implement policies in a constitution that acted as regulators for each group within the whole. Thus, three devices were designated: the advantage of a central government, in maintaining order against a majority rule (effectively anti-democratic); the ability for citizens to vote, which allowed for a government representative of the majoritys political party; and two houses of opposing political party with an impartial overseer that had the power to veto (congress). Theoretically they could have recreated a monarchy and placed themselves at the top, but they obviously had more sense than that. And although it is fairly obvious that their political ideologies were determined greatly on their social class, they were controlledby a statesmanlike sense of moderation and scrupulously republican philosophy. (Hofstadter 29). Meaning that they wished to distribute the power.
And as it should be apparent through the very title of his article, Hofstadter made it clear that the founding fathers were not idealists. These well-educated delegates were well aware of the historical failures of idealism, whether it be in religion, settlements, or government. Given their view on human instinct, we can deduce that they would think any sort of perfection within humanity to be impossible, as Hofstadter affirms, Modern humanistic thinkers who seek for means by which society may transcend eternal conflict and rigid adherence to property rights as its integrating principles can expect no answer in the philosophy of balanced government as it was set down by the constitution.
However perfect a governmental model might be, conflict between factions, classes, and political ideologies will always occur and have to be dealt with. With a system that effectively pleases, or displeases, everyone as needed, a government can do its job most effectively. The Founding Fathers knew this, and wrote the Constitution accordingly.
