Hamiltonian Democracy

I must admit, I've been hopelessly deadlocked in the middle of Chernow's book on Hamilton. Hopefully, I'll get back into it before the end of the summer. The part of the book I did read though, was very well written. However, one often hears the phrase "Jeffersonian democracy" even though Jefferson openly denigrated the Constitution which he swore to uphold. Yet, it was Hamilton and Madison whose ideas really shaped our current system of checks and balances.

During one of those hot, dark spitball sessions locked up in Independence Hall, it is reported that Hamilton suggested the president be elected for life. Of course, this rumor later came to dog Hamilton, who had about as much success explaining it away as John Kerry did with, "I voted for the 82 billion dollars before I voted against it."

Yet, the arguments for a president for life are not so anti-democratic as we may think. A president for life does not have to bow the political pressure of the day. He can think long-term and make decisions based on his conscience. Since, there would be no primogeniture, he would not have to worry so much about his succession, which would be taken care of by an election. This would mean, optimistically, that he would watch out for the weak and oppressed of society, without looking to grease the pockets of his wealthy and powerful friends.

The weakness of this elective monarchy, which has a long tradition in Germanic history, is the same of any monarchical system. It is the relative strength or weakness of the ruler. George W. would like to give you the image of good king George, who rules as a beneficent despot without regard to political pressure or opposition. He would present his decision making process as quasi-regal—by consulting his supreme chancellors, he then makes a final and infallible decree.

This all may be true, but the problem is that W. is no philosopher-king. When Plato created his theory of the aristocracy, he believed that part of αρητη ("excellence") was the pursuit of knowledge and study. However, W. and his allies are openly scornful of "intellectual elites" and "science."

Yet, there have been several fabulous examples of philosopher-kings in human history. For instance, I recently watched the movie Asoka about the third century B.C. conqueror. Of course, mostly a romantic fiction, it does a decently good job of demonstrating his transition from a purely secular tyrant, to a Buddhist philospher-king. In fact, the whole Mauryan dynasty embraced religion more rather than less seriously. His grandfather and the first dynast, Chandragupta, gave up everything to be a devout Jain. His father, Bindusara, was somewhat of a devout Hindu. Ashoka himself sent Buddhist missionaries to all the neighboring kingdoms, including the Greek Alexandrian successor states. They went as far as Egypt, Syria, Burma, and Sri Lanka. Ashoka's dharma wheel became the basis for the modern Indian flag.

(I was inspired to do some light internet research on the man after watching the movie. I came to this delightful website on Ancient India. I found this comment to be an interesting example of the new bias against "Western" history in academia.

Alexander himself seems to have had literally no effect on Indian history, for he left as soon as he reached the Indus. Two important results, however, arose because of Alexander's conquests: first, from this point onwards Greek and Indian culture would intermix. But most importantly, the conquest of Alexander may have set the stage for the first great conqueror of Indian history, Chandragupta Maurya (reigned 321-297 BC), who, shortly after Alexander left, united all the kingdoms of northern India into a single empire.

Our historian is quck to tell us that, obviously, westerners had no impact on Indian history, but yet then goes into brief detail explaining exactly what impact that was. I may be overemphasizing this point, but I think that until we stop talking about whatever-centric history and start talking about human history we will continue to have these problems in various forms.)

Anyways, back to the point, which if you're still reading, I commend you. Having kings, queens, emperors, etc... works really well if you have a good king, queen, emperor, etc... This is the case in my home metropolitan area, where Mayor-for-life Daley has recently come into hot water for his court's patronage. This TIME article goes into the issue very well. A quote...

"I have never seen the city look better, run better," says Jay Schaller, whose family owns a bar in the working-class neighborhood of Bridgeport, a longtime Daley power base. "And if it takes a little patronage to get it done, so be it." That is a sentiment that Daley is banking on. "People used to say, 'You're the mayor's son--you don't have to do anything,'" Daley says. "I've worked very hard to be where I am. People know who I am in this city, and they respect me."

Surely, this is an example of an extremely successful chiefdom. Every time I return to the city of which I consider myself to be a spiritual resident, I am impressed by the constant improvements that are being made. Daley doesn't like graffiti, so guess what, all the L-trains are powerwashed at the slightest hint of such. He has been pushing for revitalization of blighted neighborhoods (read gentrification). However, he has also been rebuilding public housing and restructuring the city school system. He has made the city a place where people with money move to, not away from.

Anyways, if Daley is personally involved in corruption, then he deserves whatever comeuppance is in store for him, because unfortunately for Richard II, we don't live in a constitutional monarchy, only a Hamiltonian democracy. And if he is defeated by Jesse Junior, well then I hope that J³ lives up to the hype.