The Happy Empire: Aristotle, Publius, and the American - Ashbrook

64 Pages·2012·0.3 MB·English

Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis
Recipient of the 2012 Charles E. Parton Award

T H E :
HE APPY MPIRE
A , P , A R
RISTOTLE UBLIUS AND THE MERICAN EGIME

Dantan Wernecke

For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come.
Hebrews 13:14

“. . . in truth all fall short of the most correct regime.”
Aristotle, The Politics

A wave of triumph swept through in each individual state for ratification. By
North America as the war of the American no means, however, was ratification certain.
Revolution came to an official conclusion in The authors of the new constitution needed
1783. Although this was the moment when to defend the law they gave to their people.
the war came to the proper diplomatic It is to this end that the great American
conclusion, the former British colonies in contribution to the study of politics was
America were already living under a new written.
regime. The now independent United States Writing in defense of the new Con-
of America operated under their own consti- stitution, James Madison, John Jay, and
tutions in addition to the weak and skeletal Alexander Hamilton set out to convince the
structures of the Articles of Confederation people of the state of New York to ulti-
which were ratified in 1781. As the weak- mately ratify the document. Writing collec-
nesses of this form of government became tively under the name “Publius,” these men
alarmingly apparent, many leaders of the wrote a total of 85 essays that would even-
revolution and the Continental Congress, tually become published as one work known
known as “Founders,” called for a conven- as The Federalist. In the process of writing,
tion to amend the Articles. It is at this con- however, Publius goes on to make much
vention in Philadelphia in 1787 where more than an argument simply for one state
Founders would then become “Framers” as to ratify the 1787 Constitution. In fact, what
they all took up the burdens of the lawgiver Publius does write does not represent a legal
and framed a new constitution for America. treatise of the sort that one might expect at
Once this new Constitution of the United all. Instead, the Federalist is an astute and
States of America was signed on 17 Septem- thoughtful commentary not only on human
ber 1787, it was then sent to the conventions nature, but also the state of politics as a
science in the waning days of the 18th cen-
___________________________________ tury. Additionally, Publius formulates bold

assertions regarding what is happening in
Dantan Wernecke, of Lexington, Ohio, is a
America, assertions that seemingly set apart
2012 graduate of the Ashbrook Scholar
the United States as the New World beacon
Program, having majored in Political
it has come to be known.
Science and History.
1
The Happy Empire: Aristotle, Publius, and the American Regime

What is happening in America, Pub- ancient Greece and Rome. For once they
lius argues, is a tremendous break from the failed for various reasons, it was thought
Old World and a claim of modern govern- that man, in fact, could not rule himself and
ment to defend the God-given rights of all the vast chasm of the Dark Ages insured that
men. Like much of those of the Founding he did not.
generation, Publius too has no reservations Now, with these advances, it is pos-
in ushering in the Novus ordo seclorum, or sible for man to govern himself once more
“New Order of the Ages.” In fact, Publius and, Publius would claim, it is happening
goes to great lengths to show the separation here in America. In the process of hoping
of the United States from the past declaring for the success of such a “new” approach to
that for the first time in history men can politics, it is interesting that Publius seems
choose self-government for themselves and to identify the problem of past societies,
their posterity, rather than being dependent especially those in the Old World. Wars
upon accident, force, or even fraud to deter- have been waged, continents have been
mine their way of life. Even Alexis de Toc- plundered, and blood has been spilt all in the
queville comments on the desire and neces- name of striving for the best life and the
sity to create a “new” political philosophy greatest society. The states of North Ameri-
after he witnesses American democracy. He ca, he notes, cannot fall victim to the vices
argues that “A new political science is need- of continental Europe by not uniting under
ed for a world altogether new.”1 In addition this new constitution simply because it is not
to this significant moment for human his- perfect and does not suit their every fancy.
tory, Publius then relates what he calls the Publius implores his readers to ask them-
“many advances” in the science of politics selves
over time. Through the experience and the
necessity gained through intellectual move- Have we not already seen enough of
ments such as the Scientific Revolution and the fallacy and extravagance of those
the Enlightenment, Publius claims that as- idle theories which have amused us
pects of politics now unique to the American with promises of an exemption from
Constitution have either been discovered or the imperfections, weaknesses and
perfect in their primitive form if known to evils incident to society in every
the ancients at all. Among these advances shape? Is it not time to awake from
are what can be considered to be founda- the deceitful dream of a golden age,
tional concepts to the American regime, and adopt as a practical maxim for
including the doctrine of separation of pow- the direction of our political conduct,
ers, legislative checks and balances, judges that we, as well as the other inhabi-
who hold their office during good behavior, tants of the globe, are yet remote
the representation of the people in a legis- from the happy empire of perfect
lature through elections, and lastly an wisdom and perfect virtue?2
“enlarged orbit” intended on diffusing the
passionate impulses and factious desires of From this reflection, it is fairly obvious why
the people. Publius rejoices as a result. No Publius demonstrates a certain disdain and
longer are people subjected to the original rejection of the old world and the “petty,”
sin of the failed and “petty” republics of ancient republics. The question that then

1 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 Publius. The Federalist. Ed. Jacob E. Cooke.
trans. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop, (Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University
(Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2000), 7. Press, 1961), #6, 35.
2
Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis
Recipient of the 2012 Charles E. Parton Award

rises pertains to the accuracy of these Yet, the charge made to the ancients
assertions Publius makes. After all, Greece remains. If the republics of the past were
had the wisdom of Plato and Aristotle at nothing but failures, it stands to reason that
hand and Rome had Cicero in combination there should be some sort of an explanation
with those prior Greek philosophers. As as to why, what went wrong? What know-
Publius is, in a sense, writing a political ledge was made available to the men of
treatise-like-commentary, is there really no- antiquity? As Aristotle is the father of poli-
thing to be gained from Aristotle, widely tical science, it would not be too implausible
considered to be the father of “political to consult his own political treatise—the
science?” Despite the pre-modern flavor to Politics—in an attempt to answer these
the American regime, this is not necessarily questions and ultimately compare Aristotle
how it was universally understood by Amer- and Publius. Based upon an understanding
icans. Renowned historian Gordon Wood of the universality of ideas and nature itself,
even notes that “For Americans the mid- if Aristotle is correct, Publius and Aristotle
18th century was truly a neoclassical age.”3 would match up in some way. As King
Another prominent academic, republican Solomon observes in the book of Ecclesi-
scholar J. G. A. Pocock, even goes so far as astes, “The thing that hath been, it is that
to suggest that the American Revolution was which shall be; and that which is done is that
less “the first political act of revolutionary which shall be done: and there is no new
enlightenment,” but rather “the last great act thing under the sun.”5 Right is right. This is
of the Renaissance.”4 As a result, it is clear not to say that a comparison is merited be-
that there is not rue consensus on how to cause Publius or other Framers made such
view this strange and new happening that an analysis as it is more to do with intel-
was occurring in America. To be sure, how- lectual curiosity. The main purpose for this
ever, it does not seem that what was taking endeavor is first to come to a better under-
place may not be wholly new as Hamilton standing of both subject of comparison by
claims. While there is no doubt that the showing the utmost demonstration of human
fledgling independent states exacted a pre- dignity in seeking to understand past men
cise and clear divide between the New and women as they understood themselves.
World and the Old, the separation between If this is to be achieved, it will more than
the political philosophies of the ancients and likely show that there is never much sepa-
the moderns are not as clear. Essentially, rating the present from the past no matter
American became the New World battle- how desperately it may be hoped. The time
field, were the hard-fought “Battle of the has now come to embark upon this com-
Books” was to be waged. In this “neo- parative adventure. If history is to be any
classical” age it set the scene for the ancients measure for what will be found, the connec-
to withstand the usurping “army” of modern tions between the old and the new—Aris-
ideas. totle and Publius will be apparent and ripe
for investigation. It is here at the start of this
study that no truer words can be spoken than

3 Gordon Wood, The Creation of the American those of T. S. Eliot who observes that “What
Republic, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina we call the beginning is often the end / And
Press, 1969), 49.
4 J. G. A. Pocock, “Virtue and Commerce in the
Eighteenth Century,” Journal of Interdisciplinary 5 Ecclesiastes 1:9, Holy Bible: Authorized King James
History, vol. 3, no. 1, (Summer, 1972), pp. 119-134, Version. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008),
120. 751.
3
The Happy Empire: Aristotle, Publius, and the American Regime

to make an end is to make a beginning.”6 If ments from politically philosophic exam-
the universal standards of truth hold true, ples. The explanation for what is being at-
this will certainly be the case. tempted in America cannot be completely
philosophic. Politics implies conflict. No
* * * political philosophy, however great, can
ever be implemented to the very letter of its
When Publius outlines the many content. The clamoring of humanity cannot
great advances in political science in The be detailed in a legal treatise. It is the philo-
Federalist 9, the very first innovation he sophers who are content with theory alone,
lists is “the regular distribution of power not the men of the city. Any bit of con-
into distinct departments.”7 The impression jecture must therefore be supported by a
left by the author, in this instance Alexander pragmatic element. As in many cases con-
Hamilton, may seem to any modern reader cerning politics, the practical element in
that the past governments and civilizations question is that of history. When antiquity
of antiquity merely roamed the earth as one beckons men to reflect on its lessons, a
stupendous rabble, legislating with the right judgment must be made concerning the acts
hand and adjudicating with the left. This of history as well as its actors. Without such
would be altogether fitting as readers of judgment, history itself is deprived of its
history can be filled with nothing but principled function and debased to the rela-
“sensations of horror and disgust” at the tive merits of value. It can be argued that
thought of the upended and “petty republics history provides the practicality that re-
of Greece and Rome.” Yet, Hamilton may moves the unproven speculations of political
not be entirely accurate with his statement. philosophers.
“Petty” past republics may have been, but Nevertheless, if Aristotle is to prove
the line grandly drawn in the sand has been to be valuable, it must be understood that he
crossed by partisans on either side of the actually begins from the very same political
contest, old and paltry as well as new and genesis as Publius: an understanding of
advanced alike. Aristotle demonstrates the humanity. As a result, it would necessarily
general haze surrounding this particular follow that both authors would strike similar
progression. The distribution of power may points one way or the other and even employ
in fact be a modern advance, but the similar language. Regarding the separation
distribution of those powers into distinct of powers, the mode in which Publius
departments may not actually be as modern chooses to speak on the subject is not all that
as Publius claims. different from idea of differing parts of a
It is quite clear that such a desire for regime as described by Aristotle. Is one
the distribution of powers is a political entirely different from the other if they
advance stemming from larger, historical attempt different means to achieve the same
examples. After all, Publius explicitly con- end? The claim of “the regular distribution
trasts this particular moment in time with of power into distinct departments,” by one
prior Greek and Roman governments. It political scientist, Publius, would more than
would be rather different if Publius had likely be preceded by the father of political
traced these “modern” political advance- science, Aristotle.
Regrettably, this is not generally held

to be so. Many scholars claim a vast chasm
6 T. S. Eliot, “Four Quartetes: Little Gidding,” The
separates Athens and Philadelphia, a chasm
Complete Poems and Plays, (New York: Harcourt
far greater than any ocean. As it will
Brace & Company, 1980), 144.
7 Publius. Federalist, #6, 51.
4
Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis
Recipient of the 2012 Charles E. Parton Award

eventually be presented, the “distribution of are large, inherent differences between the
power” as seen in the Politics is not the figures of Aristotle and Publius as there are
modern mode of distribution of powers. perhaps even greater differences in their res-
While this is certainly true, it is the opinion pective works. Yet this is not the argument
of well-known scholars that some great of modern scholarship.
anachronism is being committed by politi- In a strange sense, these scholars,
cians who claim the pure parts of antiquity most notably Allan Bloom and Martin Dia-
for what can only be described as the base mond, agree with Hamilton, but for different
political innovations of modernity. Yet, in reasons. For Hamilton, the disparity between
many ways, this serves only as a larger the ancients and the moderns is a cause for
disservice to the political science of Aris- elation; for these other great thinkers, it is a
totle and his memory. They believe that the sordid lament. They mourn the sacrifice of
men at the time of the American Founding the higher life in America to common needs.
incorporated Aristotelian themes in their The political science of Publius is far
works only as a result of misunderstanding removed from Aristotelian principles thus
the difference between the “mixed regime” spurring Bloom to a pointed critique of the
of Aristotle and the “separation of powers” uninspiring foundation upon which Ameri-
theory purported by Montesquieu.8 A great can society is based. The fact that Ameri-
anachronism is indeed being perpetrated; cans obey “the law because they made it in
however, it is not by those who see connec- their own interest,” is but one of the reasons
tions found in the Politics and America, but he cites Leo Strauss in agreement with the
from these modern commentators who seek notion that “the moderns, ‘built on low but
to impose their will on the past. Their inter- solid ground.’”10 Again, another facet of
pretation of how the foolish founders so their interpretation is that a similarity of lan-
ineptly understood Aristotelian political guage does not imply a deeper relationship
science has no place in any serious study, to any degree. The lengths to which modern
unless that is the topic itself. In some ways it academics go to create this overt distinction
makes more sense for Hector of Troy to is troubling as they do not wish simply to
lecture on the moral philosophy of Aristotle provide a rough sketch of their respective
than for men of this century to hold the variations. Not only are there differences,
minds of the great men who came before they claim, but the political science of the
them in flippant disregard.9 Of course, there Politics and The Federalist are also irrecon-
cilably dissimilar. Essentially, the argument

is that there is nothing redeeming to be
8 Martin Diamond. “The Separation of Powers and
found in the American Constitution. There-
the Mixed Regime,” in As Far as Republican
fore, no traces of redemption could possibly
Principles Will Admit. Ed. William A Schambra.
(Washington, D.C.: The AEI Press, 1992), 60. be found in the political science in the
Here, Diamond is referring to John Adams when he commentary defending that very Constitu-
writes “What then was this idea of the mixed
regime as it was so vividly available to the
Americans of 1787, such as John Adams (who Helen they “Have glozed—but superficially, not
never succeeded in disentangling the old mixed much / Unlike young men, whom Aristotle thought
regime from the separation of powers in his / Unfit to hear moral philosophy” (2.2.174-176).
mind)?” The anachronism in this instance is the presence of
9 William Shakespeare. Troilus and Cressida. (New Aristotle at a time Aristotle himself considered
York: The Folger Shakespeare Library, 2007), 87. “Ancient Greece.”
Here, in Act II, scene 2, Hector is chastising Paris 10 Allan Bloom. The Closing of the American Mind.
and Troilus saying that on the issue of returning (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988), 167.
5
The Happy Empire: Aristotle, Publius, and the American Regime

tion. The Federalist and the Politics are When endeavoring upon a broad
separated by more than time. Aristotle and study of the theory of separation of powers,
Publius are of two different worlds. it does indeed carry the illusion of a wholly
A closer analysis and a deeper res- modern advance. Nonetheless, the under-
pect for political thought will nonetheless pinnings which are strikingly evident in the
reveal this assertion to be false. The first Politics can certainly prove that the answer,
task of this inquiry is not only to have a in true Aristotelian fashion, can more than
hunger to understand the authors as they be found somewhere about the middle of
understood themselves, but also a similar these two modes. Central to understanding
hunger to understand Aristotle as he was the specifics of the argument presented by
understood by Publius. Such scholars ought Publius and Aristotle is a thorough investi-
to know that the inevitable conflict and gation of the concept of separation of
intrinsic messiness of politics ensures that a powers loosely and generally considered by
pure dichotomy found within politics—if both. It would prove effective to begin with
there ever existed such a thing at all—is that of The Federalist as it is upon this work
extraordinarily rare. In the end, it would not that the weighty burden of proof lies. Fol-
seem logical that the founders of the United lowing that explanation, it must be seen
States and the framers of its Constitution whether or not there are similarities to be
were faced with only the two choices of the found in the work of Aristotle. Only then
mixed regime of Aristotle or the contem- can any further consideration into the parti-
porary schematic of separation of powers, culars of the distribution of power be justi-
where if there were any links to be found fied.
between the two, it was only a result of Traditionally, the general discussion
academic failing and confusion. Lines be- of the doctrine of separation of powers is
tween one political concept and another are designated to The Federalist Nos. 47-51. It
so invariably blurred that they can hardly be is in No. 47 that Publius is faced with the
distinguished from others. Nonetheless, it is task of explaining how the “general mass of
hard to erase all connections and similarities power allotted” to the proposed government
when both concepts are derived from a is to be distributed.11 It is evident and under-
great, universal principle that weathers the stood that such a separation would be made
passage of centuries. Other concepts, name- into three “branches”: the legislative, execu-
ly those of subjective value, simply melt and tive, and judicial departments. At first blush,
wither once the rains come: this is to say the it is important to note that Publius is im-
Progressive schemes of the early twentieth mediately identifying a need for that great
century saw preceding moments in history “mass” of power to be divided. Power
as mere footstools of necessity. In the case cannot merely be granted. It must also be
of “the regular distribution of power into invested. As a result, the men at Phila-
distinct departments,” the roots stretch into delphia in 1787 did not see fit to have such
the ancient grounds of the once great city of an investment to be in one individual or one
Athens, where at the autochthony of its first body. Historically, these same men absolved
citizens, the land simultaneously begat themselves from both a powerful king and a
Western Civilization. potent legislature. Politically, Publius makes
it clear that “The accumulation of all powers
* * * legislative, executive and judiciary in the
same hands, whether of one, a few or many,

11 Publius. Federalist. 47. 323.
6
Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis
Recipient of the 2012 Charles E. Parton Award

and whether hereditary, self appointed, or judicial offices. These allusions, however,
elective, may justly be pronounced the very reflect the idea of a natural separation found
definition of tyranny.”12 The purpose for in law as well as the notion that only God is
separation becomes immediately clear—to capable of wielding all three parts simul-
avoid tyranny. The question that then re- taneously.
mains is whether or not the separation of Returning to the issue at hand, the
powers either supports liberty in a negative way in which The Federalist 47 proceeds is
fashion or positively diminishes tyranny. cause for the most interesting inquiry. It is
In either case, Madison does not worthy to note that as Publius begins to
provide much of an explanation as to why address the distribution of power throughout
there are three departments that are chosen the elemental parts of the government. He
rather than any other number. The particular lists as one of the principal objections to the
answer to this question is fairly simple. This new Constitution “is its supposed violation
form of separation is a natural, human desire of the political maxim, that the legislative,
and tendency. Additionally, this pattern was executive and judiciary departments ought
revealed to the Framers in a book that was to be separate and distinct.”15 Should this
most certainly read by them. Within the charge prove to be entirely true, it would
pages of the Bible, it appears to be the largely change the conception that the “regu-
preferred delineation of power by God. In lar distribution of power into distinct depart-
Isaiah chapter thirty-three, verse twenty-two, ments” was actually employed in the fram-
the Prophet writes “For the LORD is ing of the Constitution. Additionally, it
our judge, The LORD is our lawgiver, The questions the belief that ancient political
LORD is our king; He will save us.”13 This constructs are not implicit in the new Con-
implicit knowledge of a tripartite separation stitution as well. After all, it is the anti-
of duties in law is further alluded to in the federalist author Brutus to whom Madison
Declaration of Independence. Here, Jeffer- responds.16 Nevertheless, Publius argues that
son outlines these three functions of govern- a distinct separation is present within the
ment through phrases such as the “Laws of proposed government. In light of the persua-
Nature and of Nature’s God,” that the sive purposes of The Federalist, it is still
principles of the Declaration are enforced rather strange that a defense for the separa-
through “a firm reliance on the protection of tion of powers in the proposed constitution
divine Providence,” and by making their must be made at all. From this approach, it
general appeal “to the Supreme Judge of the shows that there was considerable doubt by
world.”14 The fourth reference to God in the some as to the truth of the claims of separa-
Declaration of Independence, the idea of tion. Perhaps doubt is not accurate. It may
God as the “Creator” who endows men and be that there is some confusion as to the
women with inalienable rights, has no nature of separation and the blending of
human or political equivalent. Only God can departments in the Constitution. It may be
be creator. Nonetheless, man can exercise

facets of the legislative, executive, and
15Publius. Federalist. 47. 323.
16 Brutus. 10 April 1788. The Anti-Federalist Papers.
12 Ibid., 324. Ed. Ralph Ketcham. (New York: Signet Classics,
13 Isaiah 33:22, Holy Bible, 795. 2003), 335. Brutus actually gives the very maxim
14 “Declaration of Independence.” 4 July 1776. to which Madison refers and adds that although it
Teaching American History. Ashbrook Center. may not always be practical done, the “separation
<http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.a of these powers should be sought as far as is
sp?document=1>. practicable.”
7
The Happy Empire: Aristotle, Publius, and the American Regime

that Brutus confused the new republic with lius was the concept of separation of powers.
ideas similar to that of a British style mixed Or, as Publius states, “If he be not the author
regime—or that of Greek political philo- of this invaluable precept in the science of
sophy. What is in the proposed Constitution politics, he has the merit at least of display-
that raises doubts concerning the levels of ing, and recommending it most effectually
separation? to the attention of mankind.”18 By explain-
In addition to the criticism that there ing how and why Montesquieu arrived at his
is no separation in the Constitution, it is also understanding, Publius is able to show that
argued that the Framers in Philadelphia what appears to be an incomplete separation
exposed critical parts of the branches. As a of powers is actually an intentional mixing
result, each branch would destroy the other of powers.
because of a disturbance in the equilibrium Continuing the subject of separation
between them. Were both of these charges of powers in the Federalist 48, Publius
true to any measure, Publius contends that makes clear the reason for such an inten-
the seriousness of such a revelation would tional blending of powers and form. Com-
ensure that “no further arguments would be plete and absolute distinction between the
necessary to inspire a universal reprobation three branches would be just as tyrannous as
of the system.”17 It is interesting, but not having a chronic overlap of powers between
entirely surprising, that the success of the them. Both situations are but two extremes
document could be determined by this ques- on the same scale. One jeopardized an over-
tion. Following the war of the Revolution concentration of power, risking the possibi-
and the vicious Articles of Confederation, lity of one person or one branch wielding
the consolidation of power was a serious simultaneous powers of the different bodies,
concern to many throughout the ratification and the other would leave each branch
debate, especially in the South. The concern unchecked and unaccountable. The latter
at the time was over the apparent “blending” point is the topic of Federalist 48. The claim
of powers. It seemed that tyranny was is “that unless these departments be so far
lurking in the wings as the executive could connected and blended, as to give to each a
veto actions by the legislature or that the constitutional control over the others, the
new Senate would serve as judge in the degrees of separation…essential to a free
event of an impeachment. To make their government, can never in practice, be duly
constructs more palpable, Publius appealed maintained.”19 This important distinction is
to authority. The author who provided them one aspect that sets apart the political
with the most insight into the separation of science of Publius from other political
powers is the Baron de Montesquieu. theories of the time. While the concept may
Numerous times throughout the whole of the exist in the treatises of John Locke and in
Federalist, Montesquieu is cited as the the Bible, the delineation of specific powers
“oracle” that the Framers consulted or the in a republic is not sufficiently detailed.
“great political critic” who guides and Where there is a clear understanding, such
informs. For the purpose of this examina- as in the works of Montesquieu, Publius, as
tion, the understanding held of Montesquieu well as the Framers at Philadelphia, had
will be in the context of the Federalist in the chose to deviate from the pre-modern con-
capacity the authors employ him in their ventions of Locke and Montesquieu for the
argument. It can be said that the greatest sole purpose of blending powers to create a
influence the French thinker had upon Pub-

18 Ibid., 324.
17 Publius. Federalist. #47. 324. 19 Publius, Federalist, #48, 332.
8
Ashbrook Statesmanship Thesis
Recipient of the 2012 Charles E. Parton Award

constitutional “check.” This will be explain- When balancing the degree to which one
ed in greater detail as the concept of an department blends with another, prudence
executive office is explored. Nonetheless, continues when facts cannot. The imple-
this does not confer among each branch a mentation of any system of government is
conflicting or overreaching influence over where theory meets practice.
another. Again, as in all things temporal, a
Publius is clear in saying that each choice between methods must be made. One
branch will exercise its own power: the of the most obvious choices to secure one
legislature will legislate, the executive will branch against another is the idea of
execute legislation, and the court will hear complete enumeration—painstakingly mark-
disputes between opposing councils. It is in ing the precise boundaries of power. The
the aftermath of the actions of each branch great problem with any recorded or codified
that one may check another. For example, list is that it implies that at one time the
the executive has a hand in legislating as he opposite opinions of the list were true. In
can veto any bill passed by the Congress. this case, to enumerate that the executive
While this form of mixed powers is not true could not do a particular action that would
in every instance, it stands as a general rule. mean that the executive could and a piece of
In the end, any blending of powers does not paper just says “no, he cannot.” This is what
and should not inhibit the overall admini- The Federalist shows many of the states to
stration of the respective powers of the dif- have done in their own constitutions, speci-
ferent departments. This is the method fically with an emphasis on the dangers of a
adopted in the new constitution as a result of powerful executive. Nonetheless, this idea is
a broad understanding of the nature of quickly pushed aside by Publius as he calls
power as “an encroaching nature, and that it these detailed listings as nothing more than
ought to be effectually restrained from mere “parchment barriers.” He then pro-
passing the limits assigned to it.”20 To get ceeds to prove his meaning by citing the
the appropriate balance correct requires a states of Virginia and Pennsylvania and to
great deal of skill and political knowledge. show how these two large states suffer from
One cannot simply deprive the branches of this very problem. In the end, Publius argues
powers to ensure security as one branch that there must be more than simply saying
would seize upon even the smallest of power there are limits in order to actually have
vacuums; this is not necessarily out of a lust limitations among the different departments.
for power, but by the sheer necessities and Another viable solution to prevent
demands of nature. Therefore, the most the encroachments of one department from
artful way to guarantee a balance would be another is by physically impeding those
to construct three powerful and robust departments from doing so. In Federalist 49,
branches that actually control one another as the famous “Notes on the State of Virginia”
a result of its own power and knowledge of by Thomas Jefferson is cited, specifically as
the similar power of the other departments. Jefferson writes ‘“that whenever any two of
While the method is clear, The Federalist the three branches of government shall
identifies that “the next and most difficult concur in opinion, each by the voices of two
task, is to provide some practical security for thirds of their whole number, that a con-
each against the invasion of the others.”21 vention is necessary for altering the consti-
tution or correcting breaches of it a conven-

20 Ibid., 332.
21 Ibid., 232.
9
The Happy Empire: Aristotle, Publius, and the American Regime

tion shall be called for the purpose.”’22 The democratized action would lead to unending,
implication of calling for another constitu- popular zeal. Stability would crumble. It is
tional convention is that the fate of the an unequivocally un-republican suggestion,
government would be handed back to the depriving all sense of reverence and lon-
people. To the extent that the rightful origin gevity from the law.
of power is the people alone, Publius is in Reverence and longevity are, for
agreement with the author of the Declaration Publius, tied directly to the wisdom and
of Independence. This is true as it is from freedom found in every stable government.
the people that the branches of the govern- Were change to occur regularly, “every
ment received their power in the first place. appeal to the people would carry an impli-
Therefore, “it seems strictly consonant to the cation of some defect in the government,”
republican theory, to recur to the same ori- and worse still, “frequent appeals would in
ginal authority, not only whenever it may be great measure deprive the government of
necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new- that veneration, which time bestows on
model the powers of government; but also,” everything.”25 The hope that government
adds Jefferson, “whenever any one of the would be capable of handling such issues on
departments may commit encroachments on its own is a matter of confidence. Jefferson
the chartered authorities of the others.”23 demonstrates this larger implication. He
This, of course, is fairly reasonable. How finds the defect to rest in the construct of the
else could coequal branches delineate government, whereas Publius identifies the
boundaries between themselves? defect to be in the constant tinkering of the
The truth of this sentiment is what Constitution and the potential “reverence” of
makes it difficult to say that it is altogether the constitution by the people to fade. To
objectionable. As mentioned before, there prove his point, Publius enlists the many
are clear limits to the extent to which ancient and new examples. If the United
Publius agrees with Jefferson. This does not States were simply a nation of philosophers,
mean that this option should be closed to the every enlightened mind would venerate the
people—Publius writes to the contrary no- law out of their lofty natures. “But,” Publius
tion that “a constitutional road to the deci- writes, “a nation of philosophers is as little
sion of the people, ought to be marked out, to be expected as the philosophical race of
and kept open, for certain great and extra- kings wished for by Plato.”26 Like many
ordinary occasions.”24 Furthermore, Publius thinkers before, Publius too has come to the
states that because each branch is so tho- realization that what is the best possible
roughly mixed with the responsibilities of scenario is not the most likely. A more
the others, in some ways, an encroaching accurate understanding would be to say that
department would be indirectly moving the idyllic nation, preferably that of philo-
against itself. The vested interest of each sophers and philosopher kings, is simply im-
department, therefore, rests in the quick possible to have altogether. Plato himself
resolution of any problem or conflict. What admits this, albeit indirectly, as the city in
Jefferson advocates is for the deconstruction which these kings rule is but a city of theory
of government at every change in the breeze, and in speech. 27 Nevertheless, the young
thrusting the great task of reform into the republic is filled with men and women of all
hands of the populace on mere whims. Such

25 Ibid., 340.
22 Qtd. in Publius. Federalist. #49, 339. 26 Ibid., 340.
23 Ibid., 339. 27 Plato, The Republic. Trans. Allan Bloom. 2nd Ed.
24 Ibid., 339. (New York: Basic Books. 1991), V. 475d, 155.
10