Did the Antifederalists Get It Right?
A version of this essay originally appeared in the Autumn 2019 edition of the Virginia Review of Politics Magazine.
Photo by Howard Morland is licensed under CC BY 2.0
A republican form of government differs from a pure democracy in that the people’s will is achieved through a set of elected representatives. The values this system espouses — consent of the governed, rule of law, popular sovereignty — allow for a system that protects the individual from undue government interference. It is a system that many governments around the world have tried to emulate as it is viewed as the surest way to a stable and prosperous society. Yet, recent developments in the Nordic countries and the US today put into question the viability of this model. Their societies seem to be breaking down socially and politically. Rather than illustrate the failure of the republican model, they illustrate the danger of consolidated national authority.
The modern republic first emerged in the US during the late eighteenth century. The ideas brought forth in the deliberations of its nation-building anticipated many of the challenges that plague modern republics. In the midst of the Revolutionary War, America’s political leadership recognized the need to create a document that spelled out America’s method of governance. The result became known as the Articles of Confederation. However, within six years of its ratification, the Founding Fathers reconvened at the Constitutional Convention to address the document’s deficiencies. They saw that the Articles of Confederation were beyond the point of repair and that a new structure was needed. In the drafting of the new Constitution, two groups emerged: the Federalists and the Antifederalists. The Federalists believed in a strong national government. They believed that, contrary to history, a large republic could survive, as the numerous factions would check each other’s ambitions. The Antifederalists feared the creation of this strong, central authority. They subscribed to the small republic theory and feared that factions would destroy the very essence of self-governance. Although the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 handed the Federalists a victory, time would show that the Antifederalist’s fears were not misplaced. Even in the 1790s, the Antifederalists expressed broad concern about the rise of federal authority. However, since the Constitution’s ratification, that power has rapidly increased and states’ authority has deteriorated. As the Antifederalists predicted, the rise in federal authority has eroded the conditions necessary for a republican government to flourish. This increases factionalism and polarization in American society, which threatens the stability and survival of the nation.
The small republic theory was at the core of the Antifederalist argument. The theory first addressed the size of the nation. When they looked to antiquity, they saw that when republics encompassed a vast amount of territory, it was impossible to maintain unity except by force. The source of division lay in the faction’s diverse nature. Herbert Storing, a professor of American politics, writes that regions with “significant differences in condition, interest, and habit have to be ignored for the sake of uniform administration. . . .The national government would be compelled to impose a crude uniform rule. . .[which] result[s] in hardship and inequity for many parts of the country.”[1] They argued that this division could be avoided with small, homogenous populations. By nature of the people within these small communities sharing the same goals, a virtuous citizenry could be cultivated. A homogenous, and therefore more virtuous, citizenry would be more likely to put aside its own self-interest due to their investment in the group’s welfare. They would voluntarily obey and support the laws. Without this virtue, the government could no longer govern by persuasion and instead required force--the antithesis of republican government.[2] The Antifederalists argued that although a central government was necessary, the balance of power ought to favor the states in order to preserve republicanism.
In response, James Madison published Federalist 10, in which he addressed the assumption that factions were dangerous to society. Madison argued that “there are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.”[3] In removing factions, one must abolish liberty; such a notion is incompatible with republican values. Instead, Madison argued that the multitude of factions would check the ambition and self-interest of the others. No single faction would possess a majority and thus coalitions would be necessary for governmental action. In contrast to the Antifederalists’ analysis of history, Madison believed republican governments collapsed due to the dominance of a majority faction rather than simply the size of the republic. Thus, Madison believed factions to be advantageous to American society.
Madison’s faith in factions seems to envision a multi-party state, reminiscent of democracy in Canada or Mexico.[4] In multi-party states, coalition governments are more common, which allows for the ambitions of one party to check the ambitions of the opposing parties. However, by nature of its two-party system, this fails to happen in America. A single party can claim the majority and dominate all aspects of politics. They arrive on the national arena with a plethora of policies that aggravate the opposition. This destroys any accomplishments the previous party’s administration put into place, revealing the tyrannical power of a single faction. In trying to delay the power flip for as long as possible and to strengthen its party, the power of the national government grows. It attempts to apply its vision to the entire nation by seeking a uniformity of laws, culture, and ideas. In doing so, factionalism flourishes, as such uniformity fails to acknowledge the different political climates and norms of each state and region. Furthermore, with the rise of federal authority, national politics increasingly dominates the media. These politics reward the bold and new. In seeking to gain national attention and get the media time politicians require for their very essence of survival, what was once viewed as a fringe idea suddenly comes to the forefront. This has the adverse effect of polarizing America’s already rocky political landscape. Thus, the rise in federal authority not only increases the factious nature of American politics, but also polarizes her factions.
The Antifederalists see a homogenous population as necessary for a republican government to be successful because it creates mutual trust. Today, only 19 percent of Americans trust the national government to do what is best most of the time, whereas 62 percent trust their state and 71 percent trust their local governments to do what is best.[5] The reason is clear: local governments are often the most homogenous level of government. Citizens are more likely to trust people with the same goals and values than a distant national government that seeks to impose a uniformity that may not align with the local community’s interests. The people’s confidence in government is crucial to the success of republican governance. Without the confidence of the people, the government can no longer govern by persuasion and must resort to force.2 Such force may appear more figuratively like the “Big Brother” of 1984 or it may manifest itself in greater policing efforts with various degrees of intensity. Public confidence in government leads to voluntary acceptance of the laws, as the people trust that the rules have been laid out for their benefit.
Scandinavian politics today show that homogeneity is necessary for a republican government to flourish. For years, Americans and Europeans have idealized the Scandinavian countries and their Nordic Model.[6] The Nordic Model is characterized by a generous welfare state in which high taxes have not discouraged labor force participation, and there are “unusually low levels of interclass conflict and struggle.”[7] Progressives from all walks of life point to these nations to highlight the success of the welfare state. They highlight a society where women receive extensive maternity leave, college tuition is free, and the government provides a substantial safety net. They seem to have found the recipe for a utopian society. Yet such discussions often ignore “the underlying factor that exclusively applies to Scandinavia, and that both presupposed and sustains the regime, is [its] social homogeneity.”[8] The success of the Nordic Model and their form of republican government is only possible with a homogenous population. This homogeneity generates mutual trust as there is an “inclination to trust your fellow citizen and have confidence in the government to benefit the people to the best of their capability.”[9] Today, the viability of the Nordic Model, and republican government in general, is being tested with the recent influx of immigrants. The rise of Middle Eastern immigrants in Scandinavian countries has threatened the homogeneity they once took for granted. As a result, many far-right, anti-immigrant parties have rose to national prominence. Recent elections in Sweden show the continuing rise of such factions. The Sweden Democrats, a populist party fearful of the recent rise in immigration, saw their share of the votes increase from 12.9 percent in 2014 to 17.5 percent in 2018.[10] A similar situation occurred recently in Finland; there, “The Finns Party, an anti-immigrant, Eurosceptic party. . .surged in the final weeks and took 17.5 percent of the vote, just a whisker behind the winning Social Democrats at 17.7 percent.”[11] The breakdown of Scandinavian homogeneity not only threatens the social cohesion of its society, but also the very stability of its government. The Nordic countries would do well to give local and regional governments greater autonomy, as the small republic theory advises, so that they can address the unique needs of their constituents in the most effective manner possible.
The creation of the federal structure of government was seen as a way to solve the deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation, such as the absence of a central government with meaningful power, while also taking into account some of the Antifederalist concerns. Despite Madison’s argument that factions would ultimately produce the best outcome for the American people, the Constitution created a federal system that sought to mitigate the harms of factions. In the 1780s, America was a factious and diverse nation; each region and state had its own interests and cultural norms. Today, we are even more factious. However, federal institutions offer a method for unifying fragmented populations.[12] A federal structure of government gives the states autonomy over many issues while reserving others – particularly those that need national unity, like foreign and environmental policy – for the national government. America’s federal system allows for the small republic theory to operate on a state level. Such a system is necessary for the US to survive as a republic.
The necessity of a federal system to unite a factious society is not exclusive to America. For example, due to the ethnic and religious division in Nigeria, a federalist system was adopted. The early stages of Nigerian federalism date back to the 1946 Constitution when three regional bodies were created to address the already factious society.[13] Despite this change, the country remained a unitary state until the signing of its 1951 Constitution. Today, the country remains bitterly divided across religious and ethnic lines. The Muslims dominate in the north, whereas the Christians dominate in the south. The ethnic group Hausa-Fulani is most common in the north, whereas the Igbo claim the majority in the southeast and the Yoruba in the southwest.[14] Such divisions make federalism a necessity for republican rule, as it allows for state-by-state solutions on the issues that cause the most tension – particularly with regard to the role of religion in everyday life. At the same time, the states come together on the national level to allow for a unified front in the face of international conflict as well as to address nationwide issues. Federal institutions are necessary for a republican government to function in a factious society.
The question of where to draw the line between national and state authority remains a source of tension in the United States. The party in power often wants to blur the line in order to implement their vision of society as quickly as possible on a widespread basis. Tensions flare as a result. For example, the recent reversal of California’s emissions waiver by President Donald Trump’s administration has set off a battle between state and national authority. Those in opposition to the move note that “weakening California’s authority on emissions is directly at odds with the administration’s position. . .that individual states have the right to set their own rules.”[15] They see the recent reversal in direct contradiction to state authority. However, Andrew Wheeler, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, argues that “federalism does not mean that one state can dictate the standards for the nation.”[16] This issue, along with that of abortion, gun rights, education, and more, threatens to upset the precarious balancing act of state and national level authority. For once, the party who controls Washington politics ought to put aside their self-interest for the long-term health of the nation; maintaining state autonomy is necessary to check the tyranny of a single party and allow for progress.
The adoption of federal institutions in American society seeks to blend the best aspects of the Antifederalist’s small republic theory with the benefits of a unified national government. The small, homogenous, and virtuous population exists best on a state and local level, and these levels of government are thus given authority in many areas. However, for the benefits of such a system to be realized, state authority must be respected. The federal government must stop amassing power, as such power seeks only to force a uniform vision across the country which fuels factionalism and polarization of American politics. There needs to be clear boundaries between state and national governments with the power tipped in favor of the states. Only then can America begin to mend the social fabric of society and reap the benefits of a republican form of government.
Bibliography
1. Storing, Herbert J. What the Anti-Federalists Were for. New ed. N.p.: U Chicago Press, 1981, 15.
2. Storing, What the Anti-Federalists, 17.
3. Madison, James. Federalist 10. New York City: Daily Advertiser, 1787.
4. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-more-the-merrier-woul_b_8387458.
5. Morone, James A., and Rogan Kersh. By the People: Debating American Government. 4th ed. New York City: Oxford University Press, 2019, 81.
6. https://www.wesleyan.edu/allbritton/cspl/collaborative/SveenFinal.pdf.
7. Sveen, The Nordic, 4.
8. Sveen, The Nordic, 2.
9. Sveen, The Nordic, 19.
10.https://www.economist.com/europe/2018/09/13/the-anti-immigrant-sweden-democrats-fail-to-break-through.
11.https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/04/17/the-right-wing-finns-party-does-well-in-finlands-election.
12. Ziblatt, Daniel. Structuring the State: The Formation of Italy and Germany and the Puzzle of Federalism. N.p.: Princeton University Press, 2006, 5.
13. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/national-parliaments/nigeria.php.
14. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/africa-jan-june07-ethnic_04-05.
15. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/climate/trump-california-emissions-waiver.html.
16.https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/23/what-comes-next-trumps-fight-with-california-about-auto-emissions-standards/.