Book club: The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution

[Belsnickel]

(05-23-2018, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: 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?

Neither I, nor Sitaraman, would say they ignored class warfare. Indeed, Madison makes mention of it there, and actually advocates for wealth redistribution with a few of his contemporaries. I guess the better way to put it is that the intention with their constitution was to rely on the lack of inequality rather than steering into it for the mechanics of the government.

(05-23-2018, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

Aristotle > Polybius > Machiavelli > Harrington > Founders

There were some others thrown in there, as well, but those were the names thrown around more than any others in the first section.

(05-23-2018, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

He brings up a lot of Polybius' writings on it, as well as Machiavelli's take on the history of the Roman Republic. Discussion over the fall of the Tribunate and its link to the agrarian laws, etc. It is used to solidify the ties of political power to property/wealth.

(05-23-2018, 06:07 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

1. Virtue hasn't come into play at this point in the book. I can see that it would have a place in the discussion, but my guess would be further into it. The first section is much more about the history and the virtue discussion would likely be in the the section on "why is this an issue?"

2. There is a brief mention of Plato, but he isn't focused on much. I would agree with you that we are in a transition, but not the one you think. We're in an oligarchy right now, and we are on the precipice to move to tyranny or democracy.