Knowledge And Decisions

Man, as he appeared in the writings of the American revolutionaries, was very different from man as he appeared in the writings of the French revolutionaries. In contrast with the “perfectability of man” in contemporary French thinking, The Federalist speaks of “the constitution of man” as an inherent barrier to objective decision making or administration.²⁹⁷ While the French revolutionaries put their faith in selecting the most dedicated leaders — “the brightest and the best” in modern terms — and entrusting them with vast powers, the Americans argued that the very reason why government existed at all was because “the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice” otherwise,²⁹⁸ and that governments, like individuals, have a pride which “naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses.”²⁹⁹ Though there were American leaders “tried and justly approved for patriotism and abilities,”³⁰⁰ the future of the country could not be left to depend on such leaders: “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.”³⁰¹ Moreover, there are “endless diversities in the opinions of men,”³⁰² so that “latent cases of faction are thus sown in the nature of man,” and mankind has a propensity “to fall into mutual animosities.”³⁰³ Men “are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious.” They have a “love of power or the desire of pre-eminence and dominion.”³⁰⁴ The question facing the founders of the American government was not how to give expression to the ideas of those presumed to be morally or intellectually superior, but how to guard freedom from the inherent weaknesses and destructive characteristics of men in general. Their answer was a series of checks and balances in which ambitions would counter ambition and power counter power, with all powers not explicitly granted retained by the people themselves or dispersed among state and local governments. Nor were they prepared to rely on pious hopes in the Constituion — “parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power,” as Madison called them³⁰⁵ — but relied instead on so structuring the institutions that they will “be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”³⁰⁶ Such separation of powers was “essential to the preservation of liberty”³⁰⁷ and their coalescence in any branch was “precisely the definition of despotic government.”³⁰⁸ They did not trust anyone. If freedom was to exist, it had to be systemic rather than intentional, “supplying by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives,” and arranging things so that “the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights.”³⁰⁹ That all this implied a negative view of man did not stop the writers of the Constitution:

It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.³¹⁰

Like a judo expert using an opponent’s strength against him, so the writers of the Constitution hoped to use the strong, if negative, motivations of man for the purpose of preserving the political benefits of freedom. As a modern writer has observed: “A system built on sin is built on very solid foundations indeed.”³¹¹ This is true of both economic and political systems. Neither constitutional democracy nor a market economy relies on decision makers to have superior wisdom or morality. Both put in the hands of the mass of ordinary people the ultimate power to thwart or topple decision makers. Historically, it was — and is — a revolutionary concept, rejecting theories going back thousands of years which insist that what matters is which persons and which doctrines rule, rather than the systemic incentives and constraints that control whoever rules under whatever doctrine. The American Constitution left little room for philosopher-kings or messiahs.