In Federalist 37, James Madison writes, “Stability in government is essential to national character and to the advantages annexed to it, as well as to that repose and confidence in the minds of the people, which are among the chief blessings of civil society.” Our country has achieved a remarkable level of stability. We have elections regularly, they are not delayed, postponed, canceled or decided to be held at a date to be determined later. Parliaments and authoritarian governments struggle with election dates, while the United States does not.
Madison makes an important case for regular elections here, writing, “The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side, not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in independence on the people, by a short duration of their appointments.” Virginia’s General Assembly began their 2024 session yesterday. The legislators were sent there by the people to vote through the daily calendar in the best representation of their district. If not, they will (hopefully) be replaced by the election of someone more suitable. This is what Madison is describing. Our legislators request feedback, send out surveys, have open office hours, emails and phone calls, and they can listen or ignore us. We trust our elected representatives to vote a certain way and we hold them accountable for their votes at the next election.
Our Constitution itself has achieved a historic level of stability. European governments have come and gone repeatedly all the while the US Constitution, ratified in 1788, has stood tall with only seventeen additional amendments since the original ten were added.
A major contributor to our country’s stability is our robust economy. Free-market capitalism along with an open pluralist society has created a strong economy capable of generating wealth. Our republican form of government complements capitalism well, giving us liberty in all aspects of life. But the stability we have enjoyed is never certain and could fall apart in one generation. Right now, our stability is jeopardized the most by our own monetary policies and our porous southern border.
Madison misses on a notable characteristic of our republic in Federalist 37, writing, “A frequent change of men will result from a frequent return of elections; and a frequent change of measures from a frequent change of men.” Unfortunately that has not happened. We must forgive Madison for getting this part wrong. He was writing prior to the tremendous national dependency on political parties for, if nothing else, the over-simplification of political ideas. No need to wander through the long history of political parties. The short is this- today, we have a two-party system, a logical result of a winner-take-all election design. Incumbent advantages in re-districting have created entrenched incumbents in safe districts. Too many districts have the primary as the real contest.
Our current political landscape is not what Madison was describing. He was talking about a much more bottom-up approach where the grassroots of the districts would frequently offer new candidates and there would be more competitive elections. Oh, that would’ve been nice. It is difficult to imagine how Madison would have reacted to the Dingell dynasty in Michigan. John Dingell Sr. passed away in Congress after serving for twenty-two years, then his son John filled-in for an unreal sixty years. He was then replaced by his wife, who still has the seat. A Dingell has been in Congress every year since 1933. While that is certainly the extreme end of the spectrum, it is not an outlier in political parties holding seats. Too many districts, usually urban districts, are locked into one-party rule with almost no comprehensive of the ability to vote themselves out of that situation. Detroit is a good example, where voters frequently replace their all-Democrat government with other Democrats leaving behind Madison’s idea of “a frequent change of measures.”
Good governance is described in Number 37; “The use of words is to express ideas. Perspicuity, therefore, requires not only that the ideas should be distinctly formed, but that they should be expressed by words distinctly and exclusively appropriate to them.” Words have meaning and their meaning must be narrow and defined in the law. Unelected bureaucrats do not have the discretion to change a law by distorting its language and then applying the law under their own new interpretation. The law is the law is the law. Don’t like it, vote for a legislator who will then either pass a new one, or better yet, repeal an old one.
