5 ms·

Madison thought it highly unlikely that people who held immense power would not choose to use it. The Framers' model (and fear) was Rome, and much of our Consti

Madison thought it highly unlikely that people who held immense power would not choose to use it. The Framers' model (and fear) was Rome, and much of our Constitutional design is intended to prevent an American Caesar. (One of the reasons Washington was universally revered was because he acted so contrary to what everyone thought was human nature.) "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition" he tells us in Federalist 10. The idea of a legislator who would derive self-worth not from actually doing things (good or bad) but rather by approbation from their faction solely for making the other side mad was not something they thought possible.

tempestn 6y ago
Ironic, given that these same tendencies were very present around the fall of the Roman republic. Rome had a similar gridlock of opposing positions of power, and similarly fell into a state where little could be accomplished due to the regular undermining and vetoing. Edit: Since most replies are talking about the empire, I just want to reiterate that my comment was regarding the end of the Republic, which imo is a more analogous situation to modern USA. (Not to say it's identical, of course!)
- jrumbut 6y ago
  I wanted to provide a little near-contenporary source material to back up this answer which ought to be read by everyone. From Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars: "The violent death of Caligula [the previous emperor] afforded the Romans a fresh opportunity to have asserted the liberty of their country; but the conspirators had concerted no plan, by which they should proceed upon the assassination of that tyrant; and the indecision of the senate, in a debate of two days, on so sudden an emergency, gave time to the caprice of the soldiers to interpose in the settlement of the government. By an accident the most fortuitous, a man devoid of all pretensions to personal merit, so weak in understanding as to be the common sport of the emperor’s household, and an object of contempt even to his own kindred; this man, in the hour of military insolence, was nominated by the soldiers as successor to the Roman throne."
  - 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
    Ironically, the Gauls who would sack Rome multiple times were more “Roman” than the inhabitants of Rome proper. The Gauls had strong chieftains and military generals, whereas Rome had weak ones.
- salmon30salmon 6y ago
  Rome also had decades of civil war where a majority of the ruling class was either a) killed in said wars or b) killed after the wars in proscriptions by the victor. The only people left in the Senate were either weak-willed or allied to the "winner". The proscriptions by Marc Antony basically wiped out whatever resistance was left after the death of Julius Caesar. Couple this with the fact that the populace by-and-large just wanted peace, you can see why Octavian was able to rise. In relation to the parent point, Octavian also went through great lengths to _appear_ to be acting at the will of the Senate. He was "first citizen" and all rights and protections granted to him here "granted" by the Senate. Whether this was under duress or just abdication for the sake of peace is debated. There are some parallels between the current situation and the fall of the Republic, but there are for more differences. We are more at the Gracchi stage than the Caesar stage at this point. So there is hope!
  - klipt 6y ago
    There's some evidence that presidential democracies are inherently less stable than parliamentary democracies: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-us-presidentialist-democracy-failing/2016/02/10/37fa9ec8-d018-11e5-abc9-ea152f0b9561_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-us-presidenti... America was thought to be an exception because both parties used to be more centrist with wide overlap, but it seems they've become increasingly polarized, which makes the whole system less stable.
azernik 6y ago
Despite their fashionable references to Rome, I think the English Civil War was a stronger influence on their thinking - a king's attempt to establish untrammeled authority leading to a parliamentary backlash that was equally untrammeled.
yepguy 6y ago
Well, Congress is only able to abdicate their responsibility because we have departed from our "Constitutional design." All 3 branches now write law, not to mention other unelected government agencies, so Congress is now free to avoid doing their job and point the finger at someone else instead.
- ballenf 6y ago
  Not to mention our new 4th branch of government: bureaucracy. They do tremendous work, but I don't think they should have the power to draft regulations that have the force of law.
neilk 6y ago
Madison is still correct, in a way. The US Congress has incredibly low approval ratings, as a whole. But each individual congressperson enjoys surprisingly high approval from their constituents. I guess Madison just didn't see that those two things could happen at the same time.
arkis22 6y ago
It was a good fear. He missed the possibility that congress could choose to not pass laws or enter a revolving industry door where they consult on laws they did.

tempestn 6y ago

Ironic, given that these same tendencies were very present around the fall of the Roman republic. Rome had a similar gridlock of opposing positions of power, and similarly fell into a state where little could be accomplished due to the regular undermining and vetoing. Edit: Since most replies are talking about the empire, I just want to reiterate that my comment was regarding the end of the Republic, which imo is a more analogous situation to modern USA. (Not to say it's identical, of course!)

jrumbut 6y ago
I wanted to provide a little near-contenporary source material to back up this answer which ought to be read by everyone. From Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars: "The violent death of Caligula [the previous emperor] afforded the Romans a fresh opportunity to have asserted the liberty of their country; but the conspirators had concerted no plan, by which they should proceed upon the assassination of that tyrant; and the indecision of the senate, in a debate of two days, on so sudden an emergency, gave time to the caprice of the soldiers to interpose in the settlement of the government. By an accident the most fortuitous, a man devoid of all pretensions to personal merit, so weak in understanding as to be the common sport of the emperor’s household, and an object of contempt even to his own kindred; this man, in the hour of military insolence, was nominated by the soldiers as successor to the Roman throne."
- 0x8BADF00D 6y ago
  Ironically, the Gauls who would sack Rome multiple times were more “Roman” than the inhabitants of Rome proper. The Gauls had strong chieftains and military generals, whereas Rome had weak ones.
salmon30salmon 6y ago
Rome also had decades of civil war where a majority of the ruling class was either a) killed in said wars or b) killed after the wars in proscriptions by the victor. The only people left in the Senate were either weak-willed or allied to the "winner". The proscriptions by Marc Antony basically wiped out whatever resistance was left after the death of Julius Caesar. Couple this with the fact that the populace by-and-large just wanted peace, you can see why Octavian was able to rise. In relation to the parent point, Octavian also went through great lengths to _appear_ to be acting at the will of the Senate. He was "first citizen" and all rights and protections granted to him here "granted" by the Senate. Whether this was under duress or just abdication for the sake of peace is debated. There are some parallels between the current situation and the fall of the Republic, but there are for more differences. We are more at the Gracchi stage than the Caesar stage at this point. So there is hope!
- klipt 6y ago
  There's some evidence that presidential democracies are inherently less stable than parliamentary democracies: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-us-presidentialist-democracy-failing/2016/02/10/37fa9ec8-d018-11e5-abc9-ea152f0b9561_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-us-presidenti... America was thought to be an exception because both parties used to be more centrist with wide overlap, but it seems they've become increasingly polarized, which makes the whole system less stable.

azernik 6y ago

Despite their fashionable references to Rome, I think the English Civil War was a stronger influence on their thinking - a king's attempt to establish untrammeled authority leading to a parliamentary backlash that was equally untrammeled.

yepguy 6y ago

Well, Congress is only able to abdicate their responsibility because we have departed from our "Constitutional design." All 3 branches now write law, not to mention other unelected government agencies, so Congress is now free to avoid doing their job and point the finger at someone else instead.

ballenf 6y ago
Not to mention our new 4th branch of government: bureaucracy. They do tremendous work, but I don't think they should have the power to draft regulations that have the force of law.

neilk 6y ago

Madison is still correct, in a way. The US Congress has incredibly low approval ratings, as a whole. But each individual congressperson enjoys surprisingly high approval from their constituents. I guess Madison just didn't see that those two things could happen at the same time.

arkis22 6y ago

It was a good fear. He missed the possibility that congress could choose to not pass laws or enter a revolving industry door where they consult on laws they did.