This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on April 16, 2009.
Tempering Faction
I was recently asked a question about the Constitution that comes through my email box every so often in one of two forms. The first is "Where are political parties mentioned in the Constitution?" The second is "How does the Constitution support the two-party system?"
The first question is the easier one to answer. The Constitution does not mention political parties at all. Political parties evolved in our system after the ratification of the Constitution, so it would have been great foresight for the Constitution to have included them.
However, even in the later amendments, right up to those proposed and ratified in the 20th century, we managed to keep any mention of parties out of the Constitution.
The harder question is the second one, and it is a good question. Since the Civil War, the Republicans and Democrats have traded the presidency and control of the Congress. Rarely has a third party had a lasting effect.
Third parties have had a role to play in our political history, even if it was a fleeting role. Free Soil, Anti-Mason, Prohibition, Socialist, Reform, Green - these parties raised issues that the major parties eventually had to deal with.
The second question usually has a masked underlying question: Is the two-party system something positive, something worth retaining?
While there is something to be said for third parties, I think that we have a good thing with our two-party system, something worth retaining.
However, we also have something that some of our most influential founding fathers found to be a real issue in politics. The faction, better known today as "special interests."
Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, writing in the Federalist Papers as Publius, warned against special interests tearing at the fabric of society. Madison saw two ways of controlling factions: "The one, by removing its causes; the other by controlling its effects."
Madison knew it was pointless to remove the cause of faction, dangerous even. Only by removing liberty or by making all persons the same could the cause of faction disappear.
Better, then, to control the effect of faction. The federal system, with representative democracy, was his solution for the nation, the solution offered by the Constitution. In such a system, majority opinion is important, but minority rights are just as important, and protected.
Of course, factions still emerge. We see the divisions starkly, at the national, state, and local levels.
Pro-life versus pro-choice; for and against gay marriage; Option B versus Option C for our schools.
When factions are truly destructive is when the two sides cannot find common ground. On the most polarizing issues, common ground can be hard to find, especially when there are some on the fringes who will not budge. But there is almost always common ground to be found.
This is where discussion, compromise, and agreement come into play. The fringes can sabotage agreement, but only if they're allowed to. The larger part of any faction will be willing to compromise. Take the gay marriage debate as just one example.
When the state Supreme Court forced the issue in 1999, the state legislature heard from both sides - those who were adamantly opposed to gay marriage and those just as adamantly for it. By April of 2000, a compromise was reached, and civil unions became the law of this state.
Today, after nine years under that law, Vermonters decided that the advent of civil unions did not cause the downfall of society, and, in fact, enhanced it by granting similar rights to committed same-sex couples. In September, we will take the final step, and make marriage an institution available to any committed couple.
Through compromise and patience, the factions came together enough so that equal rights could be guaranteed.
It is a model for all factional disagreements that we face. The solution might not be perfect, but if found by compromise, it can at least be a shared victory, and when the opportunity arises again to reexamine the issue, lessons learned from the past can be applied.
This nation, this state, this community, all have had to deal with the passions of faction in the past. We deal with them now. We will deal with them in the future. The one thing I'm certain of is that through compromise, and patience, a suitable solution can always be found.
Showing posts with label james madison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label james madison. Show all posts
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Religious Testing
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on January 17, 2008.
Religious Testing
As you may remember from high school, the original Constitution contained no bill of rights, a fact lamented by some of the framers in Philadelphia. One of the main reasons George Mason refused to sign the Constitution, after a hot summer of work on the document, was the lack of a bill of rights.
Eventually, James Madison went to the House promising to champion a bill of rights, and three years after the Constitution was ratified, the first ten amendments were added.
What many forget is that the original Constitution contains what some have called a "mini" bill of rights. The protection of habeas corpus and the prohibition of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder are included in this small list.
In my discussions of constitutionally-protected rights, I include the final clause of Article 6:
"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The framers were creating a state based on democratic principles, not autocratic, not monarchic, not theocratic. This right, the right to not be required to adhere to one religion or another in order to hold office, was especially important in the Protestant melting pot of the 1780s.
The Religious Test clause was created in a society troubled by competing Christian sects. In a time when Baptists and Congregationalists were sometimes at each other's throats, the Religious Test clause was a big step.
Tolerating other Protestant sects was only one challenge. For many in 18th century America, reinstallation of a king would have been preferable to a large migration of Catholics into America. If there was any thought of "Hindoos," "Mohammedans," or any other major world religion, it was fleeting at best. Fortunately, we have evolved in our thinking and our Constitution has been able to adapt from tacit tolerance to actual tolerance.
What brings all this up is the resurgence of religiosity in our presidential campaigns these last few cycles. To be sure, our presidents are usually not shy about their beliefs. Dwight Eisenhower was baptized while in office; James Garfield sometimes took to the pulpit to preach while in office; and, of course, George W. Bush's religious rebirth was the subject of much ink before he became president.
However, outward displays of faith which were often considered undignified just a few decades ago are de rigueur today. In fact, "having religion" seems to be a requirement: polls show that most people would not vote for an avowed atheist or even an agnostic.
What concerns me is that all this talk of religion seems to have rendered the Religious Test clause moot. Though the people are free to vote for whomever they wish for whatever reasons they wish, if large enough blocs of voters impose such a test on the candidates they, in effect, impose it for all of us.
From concerns about Mitt Romney's Mormonism to evangelicals voting for Mike Huckabee solely because he is an ordained minister, talk of religion, in some circles in particular, has overtaken the really important issues. I find it more important to know candidate's thoughts on domestic and foreign policy than about the role God plays in their life.
Religion is also being used as a scare tactic. FactCheck.org recently debunked a series of emails that are circulating about Barack Obama, emails that erroneously report that Obama attended a jihadist madrassa in Indonesia, that he took his oath of office on the Koran, and that he attends a racist church in Chicago.
Even worse, these scare tactics work because so many people know absolutely nothing about religion. In his book "Religious Literacy," Stephen Prothero shows that the lack of knowledge about religion is not only sad but dangerous. In a time when many Catholics can't list the seven sacraments and many Protestants don't know who Martin Luther is, it is easy to scare people about Mormons or Muslims.
I don't think it is inappropriate to ask our candidates for president to reveal their religious beliefs. But I do hope that after we hear the answers, we don't close our minds to those who give an answer we perceive as "wrong."
Religion has a prominent place in American life, but when it comes to politics, our religious beliefs should guide us but not rule us. Don't judge someone simply because they are Baptist or Muslim or Mormon or Jewish or Catholic or even atheist.
Instead, listen to what they have to say about the issues and base your decisions on that. It is in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution's Religious Test clause, and in keeping with our American tradition of religious freedom and tolerance.
Religious Testing
As you may remember from high school, the original Constitution contained no bill of rights, a fact lamented by some of the framers in Philadelphia. One of the main reasons George Mason refused to sign the Constitution, after a hot summer of work on the document, was the lack of a bill of rights.
Eventually, James Madison went to the House promising to champion a bill of rights, and three years after the Constitution was ratified, the first ten amendments were added.
What many forget is that the original Constitution contains what some have called a "mini" bill of rights. The protection of habeas corpus and the prohibition of ex post facto laws and bills of attainder are included in this small list.
In my discussions of constitutionally-protected rights, I include the final clause of Article 6:
"[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The framers were creating a state based on democratic principles, not autocratic, not monarchic, not theocratic. This right, the right to not be required to adhere to one religion or another in order to hold office, was especially important in the Protestant melting pot of the 1780s.
The Religious Test clause was created in a society troubled by competing Christian sects. In a time when Baptists and Congregationalists were sometimes at each other's throats, the Religious Test clause was a big step.
Tolerating other Protestant sects was only one challenge. For many in 18th century America, reinstallation of a king would have been preferable to a large migration of Catholics into America. If there was any thought of "Hindoos," "Mohammedans," or any other major world religion, it was fleeting at best. Fortunately, we have evolved in our thinking and our Constitution has been able to adapt from tacit tolerance to actual tolerance.
What brings all this up is the resurgence of religiosity in our presidential campaigns these last few cycles. To be sure, our presidents are usually not shy about their beliefs. Dwight Eisenhower was baptized while in office; James Garfield sometimes took to the pulpit to preach while in office; and, of course, George W. Bush's religious rebirth was the subject of much ink before he became president.
However, outward displays of faith which were often considered undignified just a few decades ago are de rigueur today. In fact, "having religion" seems to be a requirement: polls show that most people would not vote for an avowed atheist or even an agnostic.
What concerns me is that all this talk of religion seems to have rendered the Religious Test clause moot. Though the people are free to vote for whomever they wish for whatever reasons they wish, if large enough blocs of voters impose such a test on the candidates they, in effect, impose it for all of us.
From concerns about Mitt Romney's Mormonism to evangelicals voting for Mike Huckabee solely because he is an ordained minister, talk of religion, in some circles in particular, has overtaken the really important issues. I find it more important to know candidate's thoughts on domestic and foreign policy than about the role God plays in their life.
Religion is also being used as a scare tactic. FactCheck.org recently debunked a series of emails that are circulating about Barack Obama, emails that erroneously report that Obama attended a jihadist madrassa in Indonesia, that he took his oath of office on the Koran, and that he attends a racist church in Chicago.
Even worse, these scare tactics work because so many people know absolutely nothing about religion. In his book "Religious Literacy," Stephen Prothero shows that the lack of knowledge about religion is not only sad but dangerous. In a time when many Catholics can't list the seven sacraments and many Protestants don't know who Martin Luther is, it is easy to scare people about Mormons or Muslims.
I don't think it is inappropriate to ask our candidates for president to reveal their religious beliefs. But I do hope that after we hear the answers, we don't close our minds to those who give an answer we perceive as "wrong."
Religion has a prominent place in American life, but when it comes to politics, our religious beliefs should guide us but not rule us. Don't judge someone simply because they are Baptist or Muslim or Mormon or Jewish or Catholic or even atheist.
Instead, listen to what they have to say about the issues and base your decisions on that. It is in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution's Religious Test clause, and in keeping with our American tradition of religious freedom and tolerance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)