Book club: The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution

[Dill]

(05-23-2018, 09:20 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I came across this book thanks to an episode of The Politics Guys where they interviewed the author.

So far, Sitaraman has discussed how for the period in history between Athens and the US, all constitutions that were in place, all democracies, were founded on the idea that economic inequality is a given and that class warfare will exist. Because of this, they created mechanisms in the government to account for the inequality. Think about the House of Commons and the House of Lords in the UK, and how the intention there was to insure that both the upper and lower classes would have a place in government. Sometimes it was a separation like that, sometimes it was entry requirements, it took on various forms. The main thing, though, was that the system was set up so that the classes were equally represented (in theory) to prevent violent uprisings. This came about in many of these places because an aristocracy or an oligarchy was already in place and this was an attempt to democratize the government from that.

Sitaraman contends that this was a question that the founders had to grapple with in this country when framing the Constitution. Adams actually was in favor of something similar to an "upper" and "lower" house, like in England. He was shot down, however, because the idea was that there was no aristocracy here, so why create one? The argument is that during this time, the US was pretty economically equal, at least among those that had political access. Because of this, they created a "middle-class" constitution that didn't need to take into account the inevitable class strife. Fast forward to present day, though, and you can see what Sitaraman's overall argument is going to be. The widening socioeconomic gaps in our society have already caused quite a few political scientists to contend we are no longer in a democratic society, but an oligarchy. Sitaraman is saying that this economic inequality puts our constitution at risk because it was not made to account for it.

I'll write more as I read more. Right now he is still talking about Greek historians and philosophers, primarily, and the Roman republic a little bit right now.

LOL Dill reporting, Michael!     Athenian Constitution? Roman Republic? Income inequality? :hooked:  

An intriguing argument, Bels. I agree the founders created a "middle-class" constitution, but I don't think they wholly ignored class warfare. Madison is taking it into account in Federalist Nos 10 and 51, isn't he, when he recognizes that differences in regional origin and property inevitably create differences in interest, and posits a system of checks and balances to insure no "faction" can create a majority, or hold it for long, without creating a balancing force?

Anyway, this seems like a worthwhile book to read. I would love to see how Sitaraman negotiates the distance from Athens to Philadelphia, via Rome and Renaissance Italy.

What is he saying about the Roman Republic? Seems like a good example of how an underclass comes to have a voice in government (e.g. Tribunes have full veto over senate legislation)--and loses it given the income equality following the Spanish and Gaulish campaigns. Not to mention the unwieldiness of an administration which comes to cover the distance between Britannia and Mesopotamia.

A couple of digressive but not wholly irrelevant points:

1. "Virtue" was central to Plato's and Aristotle's preferred constitutions. And it played a role in the founders' conception of elected representatives who, when they ascended to federal office, were supposed to enlarge their interests from local  to the common (national) good.  Who even talks about virtue anymore? How many hs graduates have heard of this concept?  Does Sitaramen mention virtue as he negotiates the history of constitutions and inequality?

2. Does he mention Plato?  Following his political theory in the Republic, oligarchy leads to democracy which leads to tyranny.  We are in the latter transition now, if we go by Plato's description, as unmanageable, self-interested factions turn to a strong leader to keep order.