Authors:
Historic Era:
Historic Theme:
Subject:
| Volume 70, Issue 2
Authors:
Historic Era:
Historic Theme:
Subject:
| Volume 70, Issue 2
Imagine it is April 30, 1789, a sunny spring day, and you are a European who has traveled to New York to see the inauguration of George Washington as the first president of the United States. Standing in the crowd in front of Federal Hall on Wall Street, you are watching the beginning of an experiment in governance unlike any in the history of the world. Four million people, spread out over thirteen colonies stretching from New England to Georgia, have separated themselves from the world’s greatest power and then invented a new nation from scratch. That all by itself makes the United States unique and also makes it impossible to predict what might happen next.
It isn’t just the newness of the nation that makes its future so imponderable. The Americans could easily have chosen familiar institutions. If George Washington had been declared king of the United States, the Founding Fathers given hereditary titles, and a deliberative body created as a counterweight to the king’s powers, you would have had a European framework to help you think through the new nation’s prospects. But instead the founders of the United States have created a form of government that will attempt all sorts of things that are widely thought to be impossible.
Republican government itself is widely thought to be impracticable and unstable. No country in continental Europe has a constitutional monarchy, let alone a republic in which all power ultimately resides in the citizens. Even Britain, Europe’s most politically liberal nation, still expects the sovereign to play a major role in the governance of the nation and shudders at the memory of its own brief experiment as a republic.
It is widely thought to be impossible for a nation to function with a head of state elected for a limited term. How can the Americans realistically expect a successful, popular president who is head of state and commander-in-chief of the nation’s armed forces to retire voluntarily? Every lesson of history teaches that transmission of power through an electoral system doesn’t work for long. Surely it is impossible that a piece of paper, the Constitution, can command the allegiance — indeed, the reverence — that the American system will require. The consensus at the Constitutional Convention and in the debates over ratification of the Constitution is that the new Supreme Court has the power to strike down laws already passed by the legislature and implemented by the executive power — an unprecedented level of judicial independence.
Most stunning of all, you are watching the first nation in the world translate an ideology of individual liberty into a governing creed. As an educated European of the eighteenth century, you are familiar with the ideology itself as expressed by John Locke and other writers of the Enlightenment. But philosophy is one thing. It is quite another to restrict the power of the central government as radically as the new American Constitution does.
Your imaginary self at the inauguration of George Washington had many real counterparts in