[Class title]
Introduction
American democracy is perceived either positively or negatively by political philosophers. The political philosopher, Hannah Arendt expresses her admiration towards the American model of democracy commending it for its ideals on republicanism, separation of power and federalism (Arendt 267). There are, however, serious flaws with Arendt’s perception of American democracy, which can be summed up in three areas. First, Arendt failed to look deeper into the how the American democracy emerged, which makes her analysis out of context. Secondly, Arendt failed to analyze the impact of slavery towards the American democratic ideals, specifically the impact of slavery towards republicanism, separation of power and federalism. Lastly, Arendt did not consider that the constitution being observed in the United States up to this day is a product of the compromises between politicians who were mostly slave owners or have a personal interest in slavery. Contrary to Arendt, the political expert and author, Donald Robinson, in his book ‘Slavery in the Structure of American Politics,’ looked into the American model of democracy at a different perspective. Robinson believes that the framers of the United States’ constitution adopted the present democratic principles; not for the sake of building a purely democratic republic, but to protect the institution of slavery. According to Robinson, during the time when the constitution was made, slavery was at its peak and is an integral part of the country’s economy (Robinson 179). This paper will examine the conflicting views of Arendt and Robinson towards the primary features of the American political system and determine why Robinson’s view is more reasonable as compared to Arendt.
The American Democracy
One of the major arguments against Arendt’s view is that her analysis of American democracy was out of context. There is a risk of misinterpreting American history, especially when it is viewed philosophically. In her book, ‘American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence,’ author Pauline Maier cautions about such misinterpretation by arguing that historical events should be interpreted more as a language of the day than as a philosophical argumentation (Maier 126). Arendt’s interpretation of American democracy is based on the democratic ideals that emerged in Europe during the Enlightenment. During this period, a revival of democratic principles can be observed from the works of European political thinkers John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Baron de Montesquieu. These philosophers influenced the political thought of Arendt as well as the founding fathers of America. The circumstances that shaped the politics of the United States, however, are different from that of Europe. Unlike in England where the major driver for the glorious revolution is constitutional conflict, America does not have a problem with the constitution because it does not have any (Robinson 179). For the same reason, when the founding fathers were drafting the constitution, their most pressing concern is more on how to create a constitution that would work given the circumstances of their time. Unlike Arendt, Robinson believes that slavery is the underlying reason that shaped the political system of the United States today. For Robinson, the constitution was created not because the framers have freedom in mind, but rather to compromise with the established custom or practice of slavery (Robinson 310). While Arendt praises the American Revolution for securing freedom for the American people, Robinson resented it. Robinson believes that the American Revolution was a ‘tragic paradox’ primarily because the very men who rebelled against Britain and proclaiming freedom from being enslaved could not liberate their own slaves (Robinson 310). Most of the delegates that framed the American constitution were slave owners. Thomas Jefferson, who is considered by many as the author of American independence, is a slave owner (Morgan 6). And so are other American founding fathers such as George Washington and James Madison (Morgan 6). There is, therefore, a big reason for Robinson to suspect that American democracy is tainted by the founding fathers’ personal interest towards slavery.
Impact of Slavery on America’s Republicanism, Separation of Powers and Federalism
Another contradiction to Arendt’s view is that she failed to include slavery in her analysis of America’s republicanism, separation of powers and federalism. The historian, Edmund Morgan, observed that two contradictory developments were taking place simultaneously in America for a long period of its history: the rise of liberty and equality and the rise of slavery (Morgan 5). This contradictory development must have a profound impact on America’s republicanism, separation of powers, and federalism. Arendt is a supporter of such democratic ideals. Arendt stated in her work ‘On Revolution,’ that real public happiness and freedom is achieved only when everyone has participation and share in public power (Arendt 255). But not everyone, of course, can take a public seat. The most practical way of participating and sharing public power is to elect a representative of the people themselves who would act as a guardian of everyone’s rights, freedom and liberties. Robinson, on the other hand, is skeptical towards American representation. As observed by Robinson, while a growing number of Americans are beginning to condemn slavery, in the end, the problem of slavery is still left in the hands of state politicians who also have a personal interest in the institution of slavery (Robinson 310). For Robinson, the kind of representation that emerged during the initial stages of America’s nation building have varied interests in slavery and so it could not be trusted upon to promote true liberty or freedom (Robinson 181). The delegates when the constitution was drafted were white and most of them are slave owners. There is, therefore, a conflict of interests that exists with regards to how liberty and freedom is viewed when the new nation was founded. Clearly, the representatives do not embody true freedom and liberty since most have vested interest in slavery while others are compelled to compromise in order for the Union to work.
Arendt is also an advocate of the separation of power and federalism; two of the major democratic ideals that has taken root in the aftermath of the American Revolution. The aim of these democratic features of the American political system, as Hannah Arendt and the framers of the American constitution would agree, is to provide a check and balance between the branches of government in order to protect freedom and liberty. In terms of federalism, Arendt praised the American model of democracy. She admired how the federal principle or the alliance among separate units of the government emerged out of the American Revolution with the common objective of founding a new body of politics (Arendt 267). Unlike Arendt, Robinson is critical towards America’s separation of powers primarily because it only worsens the slave problem; giving individuals with interests in slavery a strategic position to defend their interests. According to Robinson, the separation of power only strengthens anti-slavery representations; thereby, further protecting the institution of slavery in America (Robinson 209). Robertson also believes that federalism, just like the separation of power principle, was not specifically adopted to help promote liberty or freedom (Robinson 218). In fact, it created a system that protects slavery since for the sake of Federalism; the framers of the constitution would have to compromise with the representatives of the southern states and to those individuals that profit from slavery.
A Compromised Constitution
Because of the underlying circumstances that impacted the building of the new American nation, Robinson was led to believe that slavery was the major factor that brought about the Great Compromise in American history. Arendt, on the other hand, failed to consider this perspective, which led scholars to think that she was trying to justify the existence of slavery by making it less unpleasant. Robinson is skeptical over the view advanced by Arendt, which implies that Americans were able to gain freedom as a result of the American Revolution. Instead, Robinson argue that American freedom was gained only for some at the expense of others (Robinson 310). Unlike the English and French Revolutions where poverty was a strong driver, the American Revolution was fought so that Americans can break away from Britain primarily because of national identity and social status. Land was abundant in the New World and with the help of slave labor, the overall production is in surplus so that many Americans accumulated substantial wealth prior to the American Revolution. Status, however, is equally important as wealth is. The American Revolution, thereby, was fought and won in order to protect the wealth of the rising American nation and the constitution that emerged out of it reflects the same principles. The economy of the Southern States, in particular, is driven by a slave economy so that its politicians could not just stand idle and let their economic interests in the institution of slavery suffer. Northerners may not be very dependent towards slave labor due to their industrialized economy, but nevertheless, they are also aware of the South’s contribution to the over-all economy of the Union. For the same reason, when the delegates framed the United States constitution, they avoided directly tackling the problem of slavery and even compromised with the politicians of the Southern states. As a result, slavery was not mentioned in the constitution; which is quite peculiar because when the constitution was drafted, slavery was at its peak in America.
Conclusion
Robinson’s observation makes more sense than that of Arendt because it considers the context of how the American nation was built. It can be deduced that the founding fathers were experimenting on uncharted democratic ideals hoping that it would fit into the new nation’s political framework. For the same reason, many compromises were made so that state demands can be accommodated; one of which is to accommodate the institution of slavery. Arendt failed to see that the democratic ideals of republicanism, separation of powers, and federalism are tainted with slavery. Robinson, on the other hand, saw that the American democratic ideals are compromised by the institution of slavery that dominated the political and economic interests of most of the delegates who drafted the constitution. The founding fathers of the American constitution allowed the states that have vested interest in slavery to protect it by giving them representation in congress. The separation of powers as well as the principles of federalism enabled such states and their politicians to operate independently. A concrete example that the United States’ political system protected slavery can be based on the fact that the institution of slavery remained intact many years after the American Revolution. Slavery was able to survive even after the American constitution was drafted. In a sense, the United States political system was created at the expense of the freedom of the slaves.
Works Cited
Arendt, H. On Revolution. New York: Penguin Group, 1965.
Maier, P. American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Vintage Books, 1997.
Morgan, E. Slavery and Freedom: The American Paradox. 1972. March 2016 <http://www.humanities.uci.edu/history/ucihp/tah/UnderstandingAmericanCitizenship/American%20Paradox.pdf>.
Robinson, D. Slavery in the Structure of American Politics, 1765-1820. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970.
