The Social Contract and the American Experiment with Democracy

As with all relationships, be they political, economic, and/or social, there are tacit and implied terms, rules, and conditions that govern and inform the dynamics of the engagement. Within the political realm, these terms of engagement are expressed through what has been called the social contract. When a social contract is combined with an origin story or a reason for individuals to unite and form a state, we have the baseline of fundamental truths to guide our journey of self-discovery.

To understand the impact of the social contract, a set of rules governing the relationship between individuals and the state, on American Democracy, is to embrace the enlightenment and the works of Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes. It is from them and their time that the American Rebels and Rulers (the founding fathers) took inspiration as they embarked on their own journey of self-discovery and self-government. The enlightenment was a fascinating historical period in which the intellectual foundations of the west began to shift away from faith-based decision-making towards reason and observable facts. One of the tenants in this shift in thought was a new set of rules governing the relationship between the individual, itself a newish idea imbued with previously unavailable natural rights and the state. Through social contract theory, the enlightenment began the process of repositioning the terms of legitimate government with the individual. In what became known as popular sovereignty, power would reside with the people, not princes. Vested with accountabilities and responsibilities, individuals now granted consent to their rulers, who were trusted to make decisions based on reason. While still very much a theory, a forward-facing set of speculative ideas, as an unproven thesis, the concept of the social contract carried with it a sense of optimism, hope, and enthusiasm. It would take the founding fathers to convert the theory of the social contract into practice. The social contract was a concept that justified a revolution and brought legitimacy to the world’s first new nation.

The origin story of American Democracy, however, is not quite as straightforward as perhaps historians would like us to believe. Instead of configuring the state-individual relationship around security, as was suggested by European philosophers, who were rightly influenced by the internal and external violence that directly threatened the sanctity of the individual, the American elites took inspiration from their own experience as rebels. They placed stability at the center of their state-building initiative. They were traitors who, when denied access to the English political system, cut their colonial bonds with England to achieve their goals of self-control, expressed as self-rule. As such, the American elites were keenly aware of the risks inherent in ruling and devised a plan that, through creating a strong central government, would ensure the survival of their status through a new state. So, instead of being revolutionary and expanding the voting mandate while also destroying the social patriarchy that dominated colonial society, they (the founding fathers) doubled down and constructed a political machine that preserved and protected the interests of the elites. A move that ensured both the survival of the state and initiated the process of institutionalizing the status quo bias and willful ignorance that shapes American Democracy to this day. The irony is biting; what was good for the Rebel was not necessarily good for the Ruler.

So, in our journey to the center of the American Democracy universe, we find a double star…the influences of rebellious colonists and the state-building American rulers. They are essentially the same group of people (the founding fathers) with different motives, goals, and agendas that suit the moment. The transition represents quite a dramatic pivot that takes a moment to process. On the one hand, you have the most impressive break-up letter ever written (No, it’s not me… it’s you) in the Declaration of Independence. As one of the most innovative and original political manifestos ever published, The Declaration of Independence is a virtual playbook of collective action for those denied access to a political system. Channeling his inner Locke, Thomas Jefferson converted the social contract theory into a template for action. Through the elegant articulation of 27 grievances, Jefferson identifies the tools at the individual’s disposal when standing in opposition to a government that does not act with reason. When denied access to the English political system through protest, elections, and/or rebellion, the colonists were justified in their act of treason. Denied their natural rights, the Declaration of Independence defines the boundaries of accountability and responsibility of the individual in the individual-state relationship.

On the other hand, you have the Constitution, a document born of compromise with an eye set on ruling. Through its articles and amendments, there is an explicit articulation of the rights and rules that would define a new nation built on the sanctity of laws, not the dogma of princes. After a long and grueling war for independence, the new nation’s survival was not assured. With a significant Tory population to contend with and the social and geographic divisions that would repeatedly manifest themselves over the next centuries to balance, the American elites did what King George III could not; they compromised. National survival and the self-interest of the elites collided as a political framework was put in place that would promote stability and strength through a federal system with a strong national government at its center. As such, the Constitution embraces the social contract by tacitly defining what the government can and cannot do.

Now that we have identified the competing truths that rest at the heart of the American experiment, we now have signposts to guide us on our journey of self-discovery. The pathway to reclaiming individual self-awareness is littered with historical moments in which the impulses of the rebels clash with those of the rulers over the tools of consent: protest, elections, and rebellion. These concepts are the ties that bind the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and stand as the conduit of communication between the individual and the state. In these moments where the individual’s dissatisfaction collides with the state’s impulses to maintain stability, we can understand how the social contract has held up over the last two centuries. With the expansion of the participatory mandate beyond the rich white landowning male, how has the logic of stability and its tools of reason: status quo bias, willful ignorance, and rational choice theory, evolved over time? These moments of collision provide the precedent, the context, and the data to understand current efforts to undermine elections and destabilize traditional institutions of the state. The efforts aren’t new; they just happen to be proximate, which makes them feel so dangerous.

So, the next step on our journey of self-discovery is to capture the foundational moments of the American state. Sometimes referred to as the Federalist period, it was in the early American republic, with its compromises, Constitutional framing, the emergence of partisan party activity, and the expression of regional disputes, that the impulse for stability as consistency and predictability was established. In the years leading up to the War of 1812, the pattern of status quo bias and willful ignorance took root as rational options in managing the tools of access. There was considerable socio-economic change/disruption in this timeframe that expressed itself in the political maneuverings of the time, moments that are influential and enduring…A fascinating time to see the individual and the state square off.

Shifting to a chronological narrative, we can move away from the meta-narrative that has served us well in setting the stage for our journey. Unpacking the relationship between the Rebel and the Ruler provides an opportunity to move beyond abstraction and the aggregation of the founding fathers. It is in the messy integrity that surrounds the likes of Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay that we find the intellectual foundations of the stable state thesis and how the individual and its tools of access (consent) are managed When we place the ground truths of the Rebels and Rulers within these dramatic moments, the dynamics of causation are revealed.

The tempo of this narrative is to serialize the argument, to peel away the onion, so to speak, in such a way as to facilitate reflection and critical engagement while still embracing rigor and research. That being said, if we’re moving too fast, let me know points that need additional clarification, or if there are facts/opinions in dispute, let me know, and let’s talk it out…Enjoy!