In my time as a youth, I had been accustomed to the method of analysing certain things through a rational lens. After all, there has always been a great comfort in that, particularly in the compartmentalisation of sensation and feeling that may have gone through my mind at that point in time. In fact, it is clear to see that in that rationalist way of thinking, there comes a sort of simple view of history, similar to that which Hegel thought to be the case, that is the extension of dialectic to the analysis of historical events and the chain of time and events in human history. That dialectical way of viewing history can actually be felt quite profoundly, down to even Marx’s own formulation of his dialectic and critique of history; it is an attempt to provide a neat order to history as a sequence of progress, much as that famous mathematical sequence taught to children. So, in spite of the absurdity of taking a rational and conventional method of historical analysis, for the sake of providing a robust critique that depends on the assumption that rational methods are to reign supreme, I am duty bound to engage in this sort of historical manner of critique, regardless of what my inclinations today may be because of the seductive nature of this style of argument or thought, if you will.

For the past several hundred years, the United States has had a distinguished tradition of a republican style government, that is to be distinct from the tradition of monarchies and the Athenian concept of democracy we believe ourselves to be descended from. And in many senses, that tracing of lineage is one that is not that disputable. However, as the system stands and even as it stood at its inception, it has not been one that has functioned as effectively as other comparable systems. But, as sensitive a matter this is to those of us who are particularly prideful of our system, may I offer up a thoughtful idea that has its roots in Lincoln’s proclamation of forming “a more perfect union”, which is this: dissent is not unpatriotic. In fact, dissent may be one of the most patriotic things a citizen may do because it provides us an opposing side to what we have accepted today which may be sublated (aufheben, in the original German) to produce something greater than that which we previously had. It is evident in how a person argues and, indeed, how many an ancient dialogue went where the interlocutors argued their points and emerged with a greater understanding or the condition of being closer to truth. For example, take someone who is politically cynical, the kind of person who disdains involvement in political activism and another person who is a strong advocate of political involvement and activism. The uninvolved, let us call them Z, advances the point that the system is completely broken and thus it is perfectly pointless to get involved, especially when the candidates one may support are unfeasible, much as many people said about a certain campaigner in the last presidential election. Then the activist, let us call them P, makes the point that not voting means the vote is wasted and that the system will never change if people like Z do not get involved, thereby creating a negative feedback loop that fulfils Z’s prediction of the lack of candidates who represent a positive platform rather than negative platform. Now by positive, I mean a platform one can support (or put this way, a candidate you can support) and by negative, I mean a platform that is really a farce that makes the main point: “vote for our platform because we are not the other platform and we are the lesser of the two evils on offer here” (or the opposite of the previous candidate, that is voting against the other candidate rather than for this hypothetical one). There are valid points here that can inform Z and P and the process of the sublation is both the cancelling and elevation of each argument, that is the creation of a new view is this: while the system is profoundly corrupt, it is a farce to not vote and let it continue to stay this way. Thus, voting by our principles, while not necessarily yielding anything in the immediate sense,may shift the idea of what a candidate should support and what platform a person should support so the next election there may be significant progress to creating a condition where one can positively support a candidate rather than merely back the least dreadful option. And if the next one may not create this, perhaps the next one might, for change is quite a slow process and it does not do well to get discouraged. In addition, while it is admirable to engage in activist tendencies, it may be prudent to cut back a bit so as to help others gain the resources to speed this process along or to redirect activist efforts to creating a climate where fewer activists are needed. This point, while quite verbose, is crucial for allowing me to create the conflicting view, that is the idea in conflict with the prevailing one so as to sublate the ideas and create something to bring it back to Lincoln’s express desire all those years ago.

The inception of the Federalist system as we know it goes all the way back to the Articles of Confederation. The Articles were designed for the main purpose of providing an organisational framework for the newly independent colonies while, above all else, protecting the autonomy of each individual state. This is why Congress did not have the power to tax, nor to print money or raise an effective army (Congress was allowed to have an army, just not draft men or tax the states to provide funding for the army); those tasks were left to the states. In this weakness came the desire for reform to create a more robust government. This is where we get the Constitution as we know it today that goes a bit further, but still preserves local powers as equal partners with different duties rather than as subdivisions that derive their authority from a central power. This is why there are concurrent powers inserted into the Constitution and the Tenth Amendments which reserves any rights not granted to the Federal government to the states and the people: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”(Bill of Rights, Tenth Amendment) This is the difference between a unitary and federalist system of government as one observes between local councils in Britain deriving their authority and money from Westminster rather than of their own precedence. In the unitary structure in Westminster, one does not find as much gridlock as one does in the United States in a historical analysis of bills passed. In addition to the lack of filibuster powers accorded to Members of Parliament (MPs), not to mention the structure of the parliamentary system codified and modified across the world derived from Westminster, these facts alongside the crucial detail that the Government must maintain the confidence of a majority of MPs means legislation gets passed without too many problems. This is evident in the fact the United Kingdom has never had a government shutdown like the United States has consistently had over the past few decades. It is in this organisation where the executive, the PM and their Cabinet, are not independent of the legislature, but are members of the legislature, a quirk which eliminates the fairly consistent appearance of a legislature controlled by one party, but an executive of the opposite party. This has happened so many times, it might be easier to count the number of times both the legislature and executive were from the same political party in the United States.

As our system stands, one can clearly tell organisational choices, in addition to concentrating power in the executive in such a manner where if they do not agree with the majority party in the legislature and if the party which the president belongs to does not have a large enough majority, legislation is unable to get passed, can lead to a progressive decay of faith in a system weighed down by choices that figured into the founding of said system originally. There is a certain sense of irony that the Constitution was meant to be a living document, where even Jefferson proposed new Constitutional Conventions every 20 years to adapt to the times, it has been used to preserve everything as it is and to cease to live, instead to be preserved as one preserves a shark, or in this case, to preserve it in the National Archives, away from treasure hunters who bear a remarkable likeness to Nicolas Cage. But it is due to the nature of change in the conditions of the franchise and a plethora of other changes the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned in their time that has caused a gradual decay in the practical function of the systems and institutions devised by the Founders. For example, the Founders thought of the Senate much as the British thought of the House of Lords after the Parliament Act of 1911 and even for a period before that, as an institution meant to provide sober reflection on legislation passed in the lower chamber, the House of Representatives and the Commons respectively. To achieve this sober reflection, Senators were never envisioned to be elected directly as seen in Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.[sic]” In fact, as stated there, Senators were to be elected by the state legislatures who were deemed to have been more likely to make the correct decisions and elect men who were more likely to vote sensibly in the Senate.

During the days of yore, it was imagined the well educated to be the most likely to vote, hence why there were property qualifications for access to the franchise, excluding large portions of the electorate on the belief that those who were landed were likely to be Enlightened men of wealth, drawing heavily on the Enlightenment traditions that inform the Constitution (see Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire, et cetera). This of course changed with Andrew Jackson, that president not nearly maligned enough, in particular from his economic behaviours and decisions that caused much hardship in 1837, extended the franchise to a wider range of men of all measures of wealth (still white, but the start of that franchise expansion). This, naturally, the Founders did not plan for, instead believing in that Enlightenment vision of a limited mixture of democracy and what Rousseau termed aristocracy, that is the wealthy being placed in charge instead of an individual autocrat. With the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, the election of Senators further travelled the road to popular selection: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.[sic]”(Amendment 17, Section 1) which further adds to the point that the Founders did not intend for the expansion of the franchise, nor did they anticipate the involvement of the electorate, regardless of education level; as long as they are registered and of election age (and de jure white until 1965, de facto, jury’s still out on that one what with voter ID laws), they can vote, again which the Founders did not expect and account for in the creation of the Federal government as we know it today. As if we needed to add on to this, if I may be so bold to say this, staggering account, there is yet another crucial piece of the puzzle not considered, which is the extension of the franchise to non-whites in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which is yet another thing that would have been inconceivable when the Southern states demanded a clause that prevented the abolition of the slave trade in the United States for at least twenty years as seen in Article I, Section 9, Clause 1: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.[sic]” When it appeared the institution of slavery and of the racial hierarchy to be so powerful that there was no need to worry, there is the case to be made that the Constitution was not designed to handle a greater amount of democracy for the Founders had never truly envisioned the notion of democracy (or at least representational government) that was ascribe to them. Thus, it makes sense to reiterate the distinction we must make between the system we inherited from our forebears and of the Athenian system of democracy which condemned Socrates and which Plato despised.

And, most importantly of all, the Founders never envisioned the emergence of any political parties. This is why Washington never had any political party associated with him during his administration and why he expresses the wish that there be no political parties, instead for loyalty to pursuing good government rather than government for a political party. Even during the lifetime of the Founders, they saw the rapid shift in ideas as seen when the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Parties were created after Washington died, further confounding the whole system of governance they created, especially when there is a profound conflict between the current trend towards larger and more involved government versus those Jeffersonian inclinations toward smaller government focused on allowing farmers to just be as they are. Much as the conflict between the rational and the absurd, this governmental clash has not gone away, but it has in fact continued to this very day which one can see in the massive polarisation and identification with party which very much went against that which the Founders intended to be the case for the United States as time flowed like a calm brook in an area of the woods forgotten by time.

Now as much as this wall of text may hurt, in contradiction of that popular saying, for those of us who are devout supporters of our current system, I may envision one such thread arguing against the idea of the functionality of the British system, especially in view of Brexit. Now, that may be a good point, but one may counter that all the things many young people wished to pass, along with Obama’s original plans were blocked as of fairly recently whereas the British system created one of the greatest healthcare systems the world has ever seen, the National Health Service, which provides healthcare free at the point of access that is more effective than our current system which is in omnishambles and does not cover everyone to the extent the British system does. Why was the system which charges low prescription costs that also waives them if one is low-income passed? It is because the Labour Party won such a large majority in the Commons after the end of the Second World War with the mandate to create a system described by the Beveridge Report as one that serves people “from cradle to grave” and with no room for filibustering or procedural sleight of hand, was able to create these social safety net programs that enjoy enduring popularity to this day. One may also point to the dangers in allowing such easy passage of legislation, and one can point to the supervisory role the Lords plays where they can send a bill back to the Commons for review if the Lords do not agree with the bill not to mention if the people don’t like the effects of the bill, they can elect a government that has just as easy a time to repeal the bill which is not a luxury afforded to us here in the United States where once a bill is passed, it is lost to the seas of time for it is profoundly difficult to pass anything, even a repeal, due to these many procedural tricks that can be used to shift blame on those attempting to pass something saying they are uncooperative. Does this sound a wee bit familiar?

But who am I to say? There are faults in the British system, such as the insistence at maintaining a first-past-the-post system of voting which tilts a country toward a two party system, but with electoral and political reforms that can cause adaptation to better involve and represent those who still need to be represented such as instant-runoff voting (IRV), a form of the single transferable vote (SVT), or proportional representation which counts all votes rather than allowing for wasted votes as our system currently allows through gross gerrymandering practices such as those in North Carolina. This necessitates significantly more backstory, but I am aware of the sheer scale of the content and so I believe it is prudent to end off here, having proven my point of the great deficiencies with the American system and of the potential benefits reform with the British system as a guide can afford us, for this sublation, while painful, may cause us to become that city upon a hill that we once were for the world.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.