Slavery in the American Constitution

In his book The Quartet, Joseph Ellis examines the debates leading up to the adoption of the current United States Constitution and the actions of four men in particular to drive the nation toward true nationhood and the adoption of the Constitution. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay all played crucial roles in advocating for a constitution that gave strong power to a centralized national government that could bring unity and cohesion among the former British Colonies. A central tension and challenge in uniting the colonies existed around slavery and today, as we look back at the founding of our nation and at our Constitution, we cannot help but think about the role that slavery played in the founding of our nation and about the meaning of its inclusion in our Constitution. Regarding slavery, Ellis writes, “Whether this was a failure of moral leadership or a realistic recognition of the politically possible can be debated until the end of time.” Our views of our nations founding and the role that slavery played is hard to think through and is something worth evaluating on a deeper level. Precisely why it was included in the Constitution and the role it played at the nation’s birth is challenging and the meaning attached to it changes as you shift the perspective through which you understand the Revolutionary War and America at the time of the Constitutional Convention.

 

The quartet in Ellis’ book wanted to bring together the North and the South in a single nation, but the economies of both were moving in different directions, with the South becoming increasingly reliant on slaves for economic production (as a side note: a recent comment to my blog suggested that the North enabled slavery by purchasing slave produced products from the South – something I don’t know about but certainly seems likely). To have truly put an end to slavery in the newly independent America would have required a monarch (or tyrant) who could have stamped out the practice by force (something the colonies had just revolted against). Manumission, the process for freeing slaves was also expensive, often requiring that freed slaves be provisioned with enough resources to sustain themselves once free. It is no wonder that the forces of economic self-interest and a fear of tyranny forced an impasse between abolitionists and those whose future and society relied on slavery. A compromise on the issue appears to be absolutely necessary in order to bring the former Colonies together under a single government.

 

At the time our constitution was written, many delegates to the Constitutional Convention recognized the abhorrent evils of slavery. Ellis includes a notebook entry from John Dickinson, a delegate from Delaware who wrote about the compromise written into the new Constitution, “Acting before the World, what will be said of this new principle of founding a Right to govern Freemen on a power derived from Slaves. … The omitting of the WORD will be regarded as an Endeavor to conceal a principle of which we are ashamed.” The fact that slavery cut against Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence was not lost on all of our founding fathers. Dickinson and others were aware of the contradiction between the words and principles of our revolution and the structure we built into the Constitution. The political dynamic that united our nation allowed for such evil to continue, but at the same time also provided a way for it to be dismantled. The unending debate in the United States will continue to grow as we debate the best way to interpret the inclusion of slavery in our constitution.

Political Machines

Recently (though challenged by the current presidential administration), in the United States, our trend has been toward ever increasing democracy. We have more participation in our elections, more direct election of representatives, and we all expect to have more of a voice in the political process. Along the way we have focused on high minded ideals such as transparency, direct public decision-making, and increased platforms for voicing opinions. However, as Max Weber predicted, government, organizations, and society have become and continue to grow more and more complex. Human nature, however, has not changed.

 

Jonathan Rauch from the Brookings Institute argues in his book, Political Realism, that we have made changes to our system, our government oversight, and to the political arena that are intended to bring positive consequences, but have also brought confusion and gridlock. Our efforts to fight every appearance of corruption has made it challenging to build strong parties. Our efforts to limit the influence of money in legislative voting has eliminated quid-pro-quo trades for votes between legislators. Transparency into government decisions and deliberations has combined with social media to give us great insight into the decisions and beliefs of legislators, keeping their actions under a microscope. Each of these changes sounds like a good thing, but in the end, they create a system that is almost unworkable, where participants cannot be fully human.

 

Regarding the changes we have made, Rauch writes, “government cannot govern unless political machines or something like them exist and work, because machines are uniquely willing and able to negotiate compromises and make them stick. —progressive, populist, and libertarian reformers have joined forces to wage a decades-long war against machine politics by weakening political insider’s control of money, nominations, negotiations, and other essential tools of political leadership.” Rauch is highlighting the fact that machines can build coalitions, can link together like-minded individuals on certain issues, encourage them to commit to support other issues, create safe places for debate, and break through gridlock. Our transparency in politics has limited the effectiveness of machines by broadcasting discussions. Our democratic grabs at political primaries has limited parties from directing candidate selection, and has left us vulnerable to demagogues and celebrities with unsound political beliefs.

 

I would not argue that we should try to undue all the changes we have made to our political system, and I don’t think Rauch would argue for such dramatic changes either. But what we can do, is create some spaces and institutions that operate with a greater focus on the long-term continuous political process and not on winning short term political games. One can easily argue that our system of primaries is less democratic now, because only the most ideologically extreme participate in parties, leading to the selection of candidates that do not match the public. Wrestling control of party nominations away from the public may give us more moderate and representative candidates, who actually better represent the people who are supposedly electing them in a democratic fashion. Allowing for backroom discussions within politics can also help our representatives move forward with more legislation. Forcing each candidate to openly voice their arguments for or against a bill can put legislators in a catch-22 situation, a bill must pass on a national level, but may be politically toxic on a local level. We should expect that priorities, even on small local levels, will conflict, and expecting a perfect answer from each politician for each vote is unrealistic and potentially damaging to the over all process. These are the arguments that Rauch presents throughout his book, which is designed to start a conversation around how we govern ourselves and relate to our political process. Striving for more fair, more understandable, and better democratic systems is always a good goal, but sometimes our virtues trip up the system because we are political animals who need to negotiate challenging deals, build teams and coalitions, and make sacrifices to compromise on important issues for people at local, state, and national levels.

Perfection

When we think about what we want, the solution to a problem, how the world should be organized, or what we expect for many other things, we often think in the world of perfection. I don’t really know whether striving for absolute perfection is a net positive or not, but there are definitely some negatives that we should consider about striving for perfection.  Author Ryan Holiday explores this idea in his book, The Obstacle is The Way. Specifically, Holiday looks at the path our lives take and asks whether we should be expect a perfect path to our version of success, or whether we should be happy with a path that turns and changes as we get from point A to point B. In regards to pragmatism and realism, Holiday writes, “you’re never going to find that kind of perfection. Instead, do the best with what you’ve got.”

 

Holiday’s quote reminds us that we must not always compare our lives to the imaginary perfect version of our lives that we see reflected in tv shows or other people’s Facebook feeds. We won’t always have all the answers, and we can never predict how our life will turn out, so rather than hold ourselves to some sort of ideal perfection, we should do our best to move forward, aware of the world around us and the opportunities we have to improve not just ourselves, but everyone. The key to accepting the reality of our lives and our journey is flexibility. Being able to adjust to changes and accept that some goals are going to be more realistic than others, or at least to accept that some pathways will be more realistic than others, will help us find more content and be more engaged on our journey.

 

I spend a lot of time thinking about politics, I have returned to school for a masters in public policy, and I think this idea is one that we need to put toward our politics. We all envision a world were politics are simple and the country works in a smooth and straight forward manner. The perfect idealism in our head however, is not exactly possible. In the United States we have 330+ million people, and assuming that our narrow and limited political idealism is going to fit for all 330 million is a naive mistake. I recently read John Rauch’s book, Political Realism, and he discusses the ways in which our perfect ideology stunts the action of the government, because it puts our elected officials in a place where they cannot act to compromise, because perfection is the only approved outcome in politics. Beginning to see that perfection is unrealistic, and that striving for it can be cataclysmic, will help us begin to advance and make changes in our politics, and in our lives.

50-50?

One of the ideas Bob Berg establishes in his business book The Go Giver is the idea that we have to abandon the long-held belief that compromise and progress are built through 50-50 splits in ideas, needs, plans, and desires. In his story, the main character’s mentor tells him, “Forget about fifty-fifty, son.  Fifty-fifty’s a losing proposition. The only winning proposition is one hundred percent. Make your win about the other person, go after what he wants.  Forget win-win—focus on the other person’s win.” Berg explains that this mindset, focusing on the other and not fighting to both agree on as much as possible, is what drives progress in business and helps people build networks of support.

 

Berg’s message is that fifty-fifty does not work because no one truly gets what they want, and no one get’s a complete package that really works.  When you approach the situation as Berg suggests with a focus on the other person, you are supporting them and genuinely doing your best to help them. The reason we should focus on the other is because they will recognize the assistance or service we provided them, and they will be more likely to help us in the future by returning for business, providing us with more contacts, or by supporting us in other situations. Relationships never stop being important in any context of life, including business, and approaching interactions with a mindset that is best suited to build relationships will help us all become successful and get what we want.

 

Being able to take Berg’s message and apply it to relationships and areas outside of life is what makes his point of view so powerful. Considering personal relationships, Berg’s idea fits in will with ideas about respect and trust.  If you only seem to approach others when you need things from them, and when you have your own interests in mind, others will notice.  It is hard to be completely genuine and focus more on what we can do for those around us, but doing so will lead to greater satisfaction, and greater friendships that will provide more for us in the long run.