Democracy is violent almost by definition. As outlined by James Madison in the tenth essay of the Federalist Papers, one of the greatest threats in any government by the people is that different groups will move so strongly in different directions that it will tear a democratic society apart. In arguing for the adoption of the United States Constitution in 1787, Madison describes the problem with the current partisanship in Washington, crystallized in the ongoing government shutdown that shows no signs of ending.
Although Madison’s specific response to the problem of factionalism—representatives will be more willing to compromise and work for the good of the nation as a whole—may seem inadequate given the current circumstances, his general response—that the problems of factionalism are contained within the political structures set out by the Constitution—is much more useful. In responding to the deviciveness of factionalism, Madison argues that a commitment to constitutionally enshrined political structures can counteract the dangers of democratic differences, giving us an inherited solution to the problems that are currently manifested in Washington.
Despite appearances, our democracy is not active combat, it is a game with explicit rules. And despite its role in rhetoric, the Constitution is not a blunt political object used to beat opponents into submission. Instead, the Constitution articulates a complicated system of rules and structures, a blueprint for governance that allows for the flexibility of democratic change while preserving an essence of individual liberty. Bracketing differences, we can use the Constitution to determine how our government works and consequently resolve the problems when our government is quite literally not working.
The Constitution does grant to congress the responsibility of writing the federal budget and managing federal expenditures. However, that power should not infringe on the process by which laws are drafted, enacted, and reviewed. Congress should not use the budget to set specific policies, just as it would be wrong for the president to refuse to enforce laws without a judicial mandate, or for the Supreme Court to create laws, restrictions, and requirements outside of the context of individual cases brought before them. While the Democratic Party and the current administration are far from blameless in creating the current political climate, the brunt of responsibility specifically for the current government shutdown falls on congressional Republicans, who are attempting to legislate through a budget and in doing so are misappropriating an enumerated power to an excessive end.
Why are congressional Republicans acting as they are? There are two possibilities. The first is that congressional Republicans are using this debate over the budget and the upcoming debt-ceiling debate to achieve a specific political goal, defunding the Affordable Care Act, colloquially known as Obamacare. The second possibility is that congressional Republicans have refused to propose or vote on a budget because they believe that the federal government is a general evil, and that many programs included as part of that government should be reduced or eliminated. Both of these positions are perfectly viable and both contribute to the current Republican position, but the way in which congressional Republicans are pursuing these complementary goals is inconsistent with the structures outlined in the Constitution. Congress can enact and repeal specific programs and legislation, and congress can draft budgets for the federal government allocating spending, but congress cannot do both at the same time.
If Republicans wish to repeal Obamacare, they should seek to do democracy better by electing representatives to office and repealing the law according to the prescribed procedure. Proceeding as their are now is tantamount to tyranny, because it sidesteps political due process and places congress in in the position to require the federal government to operate according to congress or not operate at all. Simultaneously, President Obama and congressional Democrats should recognize the rights of the House of Representatives to play a role in setting the federal budget, and be willing to negotiate on those terms.
One of the difficulties in acting from the United States Constitution is that although everyone agrees that the Constitution is important, partisan divides appear in its interpretation and implementation. While there is no straightforward solution to this problem, we all can perhaps agree on the simplest picture the Constitution paints,and when arguing against overzealous or intrusive judges, an overreaching executive action by a president, or a presumptive legislature, we all have to keep in mind the functions of each branch of government within our existing system. While this political lesson is one that could be better appreciated by all sides of the debate, in the case of the current government shutdown it is the Republicans in congress overstepping their bounds by trying to eliminate a law they dislike without following proper procedures.
This particular response to the political problem of partisanship may seem unsatisfying, because it offers rules and parameters but no definitive answers. The best we can do is respect the rules, and play the game, nurturing an environment that creates the best chance for a republican government to thrive. If we are unhappy with our government, we have the democratic to change it, to vote, act, and work for what we think is best. This leads to differences, but a shared commitment to the democratic structures that allow for disagreement to play out as civilly as possible. However violent, or messy, or unsatisfying, this is how our democracy works.
