A Possible Fatal Flaw? Part II

Staying in charge

As promised, here’s part 2 from yesterday.

In yesterday’s rant, I mentioned something about the folks at the top of the socio-economic ladder being in charge. How those at the top in the American colonies fought the British aristocracy for control of their own colony. (And yes, they won, didn’t they?)

But that’s where my story begins.

But first, remember this: No matter where you are, what culture you grew up in, which continent it was on, what language you speak, or what form of government you are governed by, there is one constant. You are human. That humanity governs how you think, and largely how you respond to others. In many people, combined with their upbringing and their exposure to society, it governs how they respond to power, and the lure of gaining it over others.

For all intents and purposes, one can argue that our founding fathers had new ideas about governance. Lots and lots of words over the power of the people, the evils of aristocracy and feudalism. Who, after all, were their adversarial opponents in the Revolution. But lets’ not forget, at that time, and in that part of the world, a feudal system was virtually the only style of governance they had as a past example. Certainly they made a bit of a fuss over the ancient Greeks, but frankly, there weren’t any living Greeks to guide their ideas.

So when it came time to design a government, they went with the only living example they had to hand — the British empire.

Sure, they changed things a bit. President, not Prime Minister, and they wisely separated the courts into a separate but equal branch, and ensured that the Executive was separate from the Legislature. Our own schooling has taught us all that, and about the system of “checks and balances” they devised to supposedly prevent tyrannical takeover by an evil Executive. (Which was a serious threat in their world, admittedly.)

And, as I mentioned yesterday, that system worked for over two hundred years, right?

Until it has recently stopped working so nicely.

Why?

Well, let’s take a look under the hood.

A lot has been discussed lately over the flaws in our system especially the Electoral College, and how that has enabled the slaveholding states to exercise outsized influence on Presidential elections, along with states with small populations.

But what about the very most basic design of our government?

If our founders were so enamored of the power of The People, why did they establish a bicameral legislature? TWO houses, not just one populated with representatives of The People? Why did they create a second house (and call it the UPPER House), chosen by state legislatures, NOT The People?

Maybe because the British Parliament was designed to maintain the power of the Lords (their aristocracy) over that of the people. Lords selected not by popular elections, but through their blood ties to families as members of the ruling British aristocracy. Permanent membership, I might add.

Of course, here in the US, our constitution outlawed such a feudal setup, so they had to do something else. Why? Because the rich and powerful cannot allow the power they hold to be watered down by something as mundane as “commoners”.

You see, if you read enough about “the founders”, you’ll see that contrary to popular opinion, they were NOT so enamored of The People that they actually trusted them to collectively make good governing decisions. That’s why they only allowed men — especially ONLY LAND OWNING men — to vote. Men of means, in other words.

Not women. Not the poor unable to own land.

Men of means. Men of education. Men of good families, though their opposition to an aristocracy prevented them from using that specifically as a defining characteristic. Money was enough in those times.

Why? Because that’s who they TRUSTED. So they designed a form of government meant to maintain the power of those men. Men with money, men with name recognition through their social and economic power.

The system of electing Senators by state legislators was meant to maintain that system. The system of the Electoral College was meant to maintain that power. The lack of a mandatory form of enforcement of constitutional violations was a form of preventing the lesser classes from having the authority to remove the wealthier class, leaving that to those of similar means to do that enforcement, through the threat of being held to account by THEIR OWN CLASS.

Hence the only way to remove a President was by Congress — which in the early years would have been populated ONLY by “men of means”. People at the same level of power and authority as the President. In other words, colleagues.

Not commoners.

Nothing was said in the Constitution about the vulnerability of the VP or the President to arrest or prosecution in office because that idea was unthinkable. They imagined the mere threat of removal by their peers was enough to keep each other in line. Hence, also, the only way to remove a member of Congress is by action of their peers IN CONGRESS.

The opinions of the rest of us — the commoners — is irrelevant to them.

Through adhering to tradition, the rest of us have forgotten that prejudice, and allowed those things to continue, although at times, we have had moments of good sense, as in when we changed the manner of electing Senators, and when we changed the right to vote to include all citizens.

But that upper class hasn’t forgotten. That’s why the Citizens United decision has perpetuated the ability of the wealthy to use their money to determine who gets elected. That’s why you will NOT see an effort to change the DOJ memo regarding the vulnerability of the President to arrest or prosecution, and why the Electoral College isn’t going to go away any time soon.

Because the top class in the socio-economic ladder doesn’t WANT these things to change.

Think about that the next time you go to vote.