Concentrated Government Power

It is often stated that American government is based on a fear of concentrated government power.

This fear of concentrated government power explains much about American government, particularly the preference for divided government. The roots of this fear, with relevance to American government as it exists today, originated with the Anti-Federalists in the autumn months of 1787. Following the completion of what was to become the Constitution of the United States, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists engaged in a battle of words arguing for and against the document, respectively. The Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay from October 1787 to August 1788, are the most well known set of Federalist arguments in favor of the new Constitution. However, a new Constitution that would remove significant powers from the states and deliver it to a concentrated, central government sparked controversy, and Anti-Federalists responded with arguments of their own.

From October 1787 to April 1788, a series of Anti-Federalist essays appeared in the New York Journal under the pseudonym "Brutus." The first in particular, published on October 18, outlined the distrust and potential danger of a new concentrated government. "Brutus" states that the consolidated government under the new Constitution would have "power to lay and collect taxes…at their pleasure," and to raise them in "any mode they please." Brutus emphasizes the fear that such consolidated power over money would ignite "the great engine of oppression and tyranny." Without money, the states powers would be "absorbed in that of the general government." Suggested also is that federal power "to raise and support armies at pleasure" would tend to the "destruction of liberty," and that the establishment of federal courts would "swallow up all the powers of the courts in the respective states."

A greater disdain is expressed for what has come to be known as the elastic clause of the Constitution in Section 8 of Article I, which allows the federal government "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" for carrying out the laws specifically defined. Such an open door is feared to be able to allow for oppression and tyranny. Perhaps the premise of this fear is identified by the author's belief that it is human nature for all men with power to seek greater power, superiority over any thing that stands in the way. In closing, "Brutus" suggests that any "friend to the liberty and happiness of mankind" should not adopt the new Constitution.

Published on November 22, 1787, James Madison's "Federalist 10" attempted to dispel the fears presented by "Brutus I" and argued for the "numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union." Among those are that a centralized representative government would be run by officials elected by a larger population than the officials of the state governments, thus decreasing the probability that corrupt or inefficient officials are elected. Also, a consolidated government would be less prone to resort to oppression or tyranny because the inclusion of a larger number of factions would reduce the ability of a national unity in favor of any such oppression. "Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, - is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it."

As proven by the fact that the Constitution is the most sacred and binding document of American government today, the Federalists were able to reduce the fear of concentrated government in the 1780s enough to have the Constitution ratified. However, that fear has all but disappeared, as the argument continues today. Building on the long tradition of support for the catch-phrase "government that governs least, governs best," the Republican Party (or especially the Libertarian Party) now has seemed to take the Anti-Federalist side of the argument, fearing that the ever-growing federal government is resulting in power much too concentrated for our nation, while the Democratic Party seems to be playing the role of the Federalists, once again arguing for federalization and government consolidation.

Unlike the debates of our nation's early history, though, today's debates may not accurately be defined in terms of right and wrong for the future of our nation, for the future holds many unknowns, and therefore the correct path at this time can not be known. Perhaps once again the Federalist argument should prevail, seeking further consolidation and concentration of government power. Or perhaps the fear of concentrated power is finally materializing, and it is time to limit the federal government once again. Whatever the case may be, I am confident that America will continue to thrive as one of the greatest nations on earth, and that the American government will continue to serve as the model for newly constructed governments around the globe.