RIGHT THROUGH American history, there’s been an ongoing clash between pressure for more freedom and democracy coming from below, and efforts at elite control and domination coming from above. It goes back to the founding of the country.
James Madison, the main framer of the Constitution, who was as much of a believer in democracy as almost anybody in the world in that day, nevertheless felt that the United States system should be designed, and indeed with his initiative was designed, so that power rests in the hands of the wealthy. Because the wealthy are the more responsible set of men, those who have the public interest at heart, not just parochial interests.
Therefore, the structure of the formal constitutional system placed most power in the hands of the Senate. Remember, the Senate was not elected in those days. In fact, not until about a century ago. It was picked by legislatures and had long terms and was selected from the wealthy. More responsible men. Men who, as Madison put it, had sympathy for property owners and their rights. And that has to be protected.
The Senate had most of the power, but it also was the most remote from the population. The House of Representatives—which was closer to the population—had a much weaker role. The executive—the president—was more of an administrator in those days, with some responsibility for foreign policy and other matters. Quite unlike today.
A major question was to what extent should we permit real democracy? Madison discussed this pretty seriously, not so much in the Federalist Papers—which were kind of propaganda—but in the debates of the Constitutional Convention, which are the most interesting place to look. If you read the debates, Madison said the major concern of the society—any decent society—has to be to “protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” His phrase. And he had arguments.
Madison observed that the model he had in mind— England of course—was the most advanced country and political society of the day. He said, suppose in England everyone had a vote freely. Well, the majority of the poor would get together and they would organize to take away the property of the rich. They would carry out what today we would call land reform: break up the big estates, break up agricultural states and give people their own land, take the land from which not long ago they had been driven by the enclosure system. So they’d vote to take over what had been the commons before and take it for themselves.
And, Madison said, that would obviously be unjust, so you can’t have that. Therefore, the constitutional system has to be set up to prevent democracy—the “tyranny of the majority” it was sometimes called—to insure that property of the opulent is not interfered with.
So that’s the structure of the system, it was designed to prevent the danger of democracy. Of course, in Madison’s defense we should say that he was precapitalist. He assumed that the wealth of the nation would be kind of like Roman gentlemen of the mythology of the day—enlightened aristocrats, benign figures working and dedicating themselves to the welfare of all, and so on. That was one view, and it was a pretty standard one as you can see from the fact that Madison’s constitutional system was in fact installed.
And I should say that, by the time you get to the 1790s, Madison was bitterly condemning the deterioration of the system he’d created, with stockjobbers and other speculators taking over, destroying the system in the name of their own interests, and so on.
There was another picture—in words at least, and partly in belief—expressed by Jefferson, the leading democratic theorist. Not so much in his own actions, but in his talk about them in which he made a distinction between what he called the aristocrats and the democrats. He put it pretty eloquently.
Basically, the idea of the aristocrats is that power has to be vested in a special class of particularly distinguished and privileged people, who will make the decisions and do the right thing. The democrats believed that power should be in the hands of the population. Ultimately, they are the repository of decision making and also ultimately of sensible action, but whether we like their decisions or not, that’s what we should be supporting. He was supporting the democrats, not the aristocrats. That’s kind of the opposite of the Madisonian view, though, as I said, it didn’t take long for Madison to see where the system was going—and that schism runs right through American history to the present moment.
It’s of some interest that this debate has a hoary tradition. It goes back to the first work on political democracy in classical Greece. The first major book on political systems is Aristotle’s Politics—a long study that investigates many different kinds of political systems. He concludes that of all of them, the best is democracy. But then he points out exactly the flaw that Madison pointed out. He wasn’t thinking of a country, he was thinking of the city-state of Athens, and remember, his democracy was for free men. But the same was true for Madison—it was free men, no women—and of course not slaves.
Aristotle observed the same thing that Madison did much later. If Athens were a democracy for free men, the poor would get together and take away the property of the rich. Well, same dilemma, but they had opposite solutions. Madison’s solution was to reduce democracy—that is, to organize the system so that power would be in the hands of the wealthy, and to fragment the population in many ways so that they couldn’t get together to organize to take away the power of the rich. Aristotle’s solution was the opposite—he proposed what we would nowadays call a welfare state. He said try to reduce inequality—reduce inequality by public meals and other measures appropriate to the city-state. Same problem—opposite solutions. One is: reduce inequality, and you won’t have this problem. The other is: reduce democracy. Well, in those conflicting aspirations you have the foundation of the country.
Inequality has many consequences. Not only is it extremely unjust in itself, it has highly negative consequences on society as a whole. Even on things like health. There are good studies—Richard Wilkinson and others—showing the more unequal a society is, whether it’s poor or rich, the worse the health factors. Even among the rich. Because the very fact of inequality has a corrosive, harmful effect on social relations, on consciousness, on human life, and so on, which has all kinds of negative effects. Well, you know, these things ought to be overcome. Aristotle was right—the way to overcome the paradox of democracy is by reducing inequality, not reducing democracy.
There was, in the early days of the United States, an endless future of increasing wealth, freedom, achievement, and power—as long as you didn’t pay too much attention to the victims. The United States was a settler-colonial society, the most brutal form of imperialism. You’d need to overlook the fact that you’re getting a richer, freer life by virtue of decimating the indigenous population, the first great “original sin” of American society; and massive slavery of another segment of the society, the second great sin (we’re still living with the effects of both of them); and then overlook bitterly exploited labor, overseas conquests, and so on. Just overlook those small details and then there’s a certain truth to our ideals. A major question has always been, to what extent should we permit real democracy?
If you go back to the establishment of the Constitution—we’re now talking about the late eighteenth century—there were conflicting views of how the new society should be organized and constructed. One crucial element that shouldn’t be forgotten is the overwhelming influence of the slave states. In fact one significant factor in the American Revolution was slavery. By 1770 British justices—like Lord Mansfield, in a famous case—were already declaring slavery to be an obscenity that can’t be tolerated. American slave owners could see the writing on the wall. If the colonies remained subject to British rule, pretty soon slavery would be outlawed—and there’s pretty good evidence that was a major factor in the uprising, in which the slave states were very influential, Virginia being the most powerful. There were the beginnings of opposition to slavery in the Northeast, but it was small and the Constitution reflects that.
If you look at the history of the United States, it’s a constant struggle between these two tendencies. A democratizing tendency that’s mostly coming from the population, a pressure from below, which has won many victories. Women, for example—that’s half the population—they did get the vote in the 1920s. (Before we feel too proud, that happens to be about the same time that women’s rights were dramatically improving in Afghanistan.)
The slaves were formally freed, but not actually. In practice, they didn’t get formal freedom until the 1960s, and even then there were many restrictions. We still have substantial residue of slavery in the contemporary system, in fact, but the property conditions on voting and participation were reduced in the nineteenth century. Then you get the beginnings of serious labor organizations—which won many victories.
So you get this constant battle going on: periods of regression, periods of progress. The 1960s, for example, were a period of significant democratization. Sectors of the population that were usually passive and apathetic became organized, active, started pressing their demands. And they became more and more involved in decision making, activism, and so on. It was a civilizing period—I think that’s why it’s called “The Time of Troubles.” It just changed consciousness in a lot of ways: Minority rights. Women’s rights. Concern for the environment. Opposition to aggression. Concern for other people.
See Malcolm X’s “Democracy Is Hypocrisy” speech, 1960
See Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Where Do We Go from Here?” speech, August 16, 1967
These are all civilizing effects, and that caused great fear . . .
I hadn’t anticipated the power—I should have—but I didn’t anticipate the power of the reaction to these civilizing effects of the ’60s. I didn’t anticipate the strength of the reaction to it—the economic forces that would be used to deal with it, or the disciplinary techniques, the backlash.
IN THE YEAR 1787,
and other sources
Assembled at Philadelphia, in the Year 1787
MR. MADISON. Such are the various pursuits of this life, that, in all civilized countries, the interest of a community will be divided. There will be debtors and creditors, and an unequal possession of property, and hence arise different views and different objects in government. This, indeed, is the ground-work of aristocracy; and we find it blended in every government, both ancient and modern. Even where titles have survived property, we discover the noble beggar, haughty and assuming.
The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but, in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered.
Men, according to their constitutions, and the circumstances in which they are placed, differ honestly in opinion. Some are whigs, liberals, democrats, call them what you please; others are tories, serviles, aristocrats, etc. The latter fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society. The former consider the people as the safest depository of power, in the ultimate, they cherish them therefore, and wish to leave in them all the powers to the exercise of which they are competent. This is the division of sentiment now existing in the US.
The real difference between democracy and oligarchy is between poverty and wealth. Wherever the rulers, whether they be a minority or a majority, owe their power to wealth, that is an oligarchy. Wherever the poor rule, that is a democracy. Usually, where the rulers hold power by wealth, they are few, but where the poor rule, they are many, because few men are rich but all are free [if they are citizens in a city-state], and wealth and freedom are the grounds on which the two groups lay claim to government.
Democracy is not necessarily only wherever the multitude has authority. Oligarchy is not necessarily wherever a minority has power over the system of government. If the majority of a citystate were wealthy and had authority, nobody would call it a democracy, just as if a small group of poor men had control over a larger rich population, nobody would call it an oligarchy. Rather, democracy is when every free citizen has authority and oligarchy is when the rich have it.
Democracy is when there is a majority of free, poor men who have authority to rule, while oligarchy is when it is in the hands of the wealthy and well-born, who are a minority.
Poverty is the cause of the defects of democracy. That is the reason why measures should be taken to ensure a permanent level of prosperity. This is in the interest of all classes, including the prosperous themselves; and therefore the proper policy is to accumulate any surplus revenue in a fund, and then to distribute this fund in block grants to the poor. The ideal method of distribution, if a sufficient fund can be accumulated, is to make such grants sufficient for the purchase of a plot of land: failing that, they should be large enough to start men in commerce or agriculture.
English Court of King’s Bench, May 14, 1772,
opinion delivered by Lord Mansfield
The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of now being introduced by Courts of Justice upon mere reasoning or inferences from any principles, natural or political; it must take its rise from positive law; the origin of it can in no country or age be traced back to any other source: immemorial usage preserves the memory of positive law long after all traces of the occasion; reason, authority, and time of its introduction are lost; and in a case so odious as the condition of slaves must be taken strictly, the power claimed by this return was never in use here; no master ever was allowed here to take a slave by force to be sold abroad because he had deserted from his service, or for any other reason whatever; we cannot say the cause set forth by this return is allowed or approved of by the laws of this kingdom, therefore the black must be discharged.
“Democracy Is Hypocrisy” speech, 1960
What kind of social or political system is it when a black man has no voice in court? Has no nothing on his side other than what the white man chooses to give you? My brothers and sisters we have to put a stop to this and it will never be stopped until we stop it ourselves. They attack the victim and then the criminal who attacked the victim accuses the victim of attacking him. This is American “justice.” This is American “democracy” and those of you who are familiar with it know that in America democracy is hypocrisy. Now if I’m wrong put me in jail, but if you can’t prove that in America democracy is not hypocrisy then don’t put your hands on me. Democracy is hypocrisy. If democracy means freedom why aren’t our people free? If democracy means justice why don’t we have justice? If democracy means equality then why don’t we have equality? Twenty million black people in this country have been like boys in the white man’s house. He even calls us boys. Don’t care how big you get he calls you boy. You can be a professor; to him you’re just another boy.
“Where Do We Go from Here?” speech,
August 16, 1967
I want to say to you as I move to my conclusion, as we talk about “Where do we go from here,” that we honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society. There are forty million poor people here. And one day we must ask the question, “Why are there forty million poor people in America?” And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth. When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life’s marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. You see, my friends, when you deal with this, you begin to ask the question, “Who owns the oil?” You begin to ask the question, “Who owns the iron ore?”
April 22, 1970
I congratulate you, who by your presence here today demonstrate your concern and commitment to an issue that is more than just a matter of survival. How we survive is the critical question.
Earth Day is dramatic evidence of a broad new national concern that cuts across generations and ideologies. It may be symbolic of a new communication between young and old about our values and priorities.
Take advantage of this broad new agreement. Don’t drop out of it. Pull together a new national coalition whose objective is to put Gross National Quality on a par with Gross National Product.
Campaign nationwide to elect an “Ecology Congress” as the 92nd Congress—a Congress that will build bridges between our citizens and between man and nature’s systems, instead of building more highways and dams and new weapons systems that escalate the arms race.
Earth Day can—and it must—lend a new urgency and a new support to solving the problems that still threaten to tear the fabric of this society . . . the problems of race, of war, of poverty, of modern-day institutions.