October 10, 2023 • 10 mins
On this episode of Our American Stories, the framers of the Constitution took many things into account while creating the document—including our own natural instincts to fight. Dr. Bill McClay tells the story of how the Constitution was designed with our most partisan attributes in mind.
Support the show (https://www.ouramericanstories.com/donate)
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
And we returned to our American stories. Up next another
installment of our series about Us, the Story of America
series with Hillsdale College professor and author of the terrific
book Land of Hope, Bill McLay. Is also a wonderful
young reader's edition of Land of Hope. If you know
or have kids in your life, by all means, pick
(00:31):
up this book at Amazon or the usual suspects. You
won't regret it. When the Framers drafted the Constitution, they
did so with many goals in mind, but one we
might not think about is the goal of managing conflict.
In fact, it could be said that the Constitution was
designed for conflict. Let's get into the story. Here's Bill McClay.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
One of the biggest issues that needed to be resolved
was the question of representation. How were the different entities
that made up the United States to be represented? How
were the people to be represented in the Congress. There
(01:17):
was a conflict right off the bat. Madison introduced a
plan for representation by population. The more populated estate was,
the more representatives it would have in the Congress. And
this was rightly and or understandably objected to by the
(01:38):
small states which had less population, but they were states also,
and they felt representation should be by state, not by population.
So you have these two very different views, both of
which have some legitimacy to them. Neither one is outlandish.
(02:01):
So this was a clash of principle and not just
of competing interests. It was certainly competing interests. But you
should never be content when people tell you this is
a clash over interest, because interests generally have principles lurking
behind them, and this definitely did. What did it mean
to be represented? So what they came up with, with
(02:23):
the help of Roger Sherman of Connecticut, was the Great Compromise.
And the Great Compromise consisted of having a Congress that
had two houses. Two houses one, the lower House, so
called the House of Representatives, would apportion representation according to population,
(02:44):
so the big states like Virginia would get proportionally more
representatives than smaller states like Rhode Island. But there would
be a second house, the Senate, which would be representative
of the states. Every state, irrespective of size or population,
would have two representatives called Senators, and the Senate would
(03:07):
be much smaller as a result. You know, we now
have fifty states only one hundred members of the Senate
many many more members four times over four times as
many members of the House of Representatives today, so this
was the solution. Each house had certain powers that were
(03:28):
exclusive to it. The House of Representatives got to initiate
spending bills appropriations. They had the power of the purse
to initiate bills, but bills had to pass both houses,
so it did have to run the gauntlet of the Senate. Eventually,
appropriations bills did. But the Senate had many many privileges
(03:49):
or responsibilities that were exclusively its. The Senate ratified treaties.
The Senate had an advise and consent function in which
it nominees to the Cabinet and other executive appointments had
to be consented to by the Senates, and would have
(04:09):
the power to examine and validate those nominations. Senators had
six year terms of office, so they didn't have to
run for election as often. That meant they could be
more detached, less worried about doing something on principle that
the population might object to. That's one reason why the
(04:32):
ratification of treaties, for example, would be the province of
the Senate. They could be more deliberative. That people often
refer to the Senate as the world's greatest deliberative body.
That's the idea they could think along and longer track
house of representatives. However, it was a different matter. They
representatives ran every two years, so they were as soon
(04:54):
as they got elected, they were thinking about being re elected,
and they had to be very, very in tune with
what their constituencies were thinking at any particular time. So
it's the more popular house. It's the one more in
touch with the people. By design, the Senate, by design,
is less so more you could say aristocratic in its bearer.
(05:19):
And this is all by design. One other thing that
we should mention is that this new government, this new constitution,
the Constitution of seventeen eighty seven, had much greater powers,
especially in the executive branch. But it was very important
(05:40):
that the powers given to the government were enumerated. That
is their number. They're finite, they're defined. If something wasn't enumerated,
you can do this, you can't do this, then the
assumption was you couldn't do it. The powers that were given.
(06:00):
The charter that was given to the national government enumerated
those powers. It was to be a limited government. That's
what we're getting at here. It's a limited government. They
would also be controlled by the separation of powers and
the clashes that the separation of powers would inevitably result
in to the public good not always the most efficient
(06:23):
way of doing business. If you want to just have
somebody with a stroke of a pen and bring something
into being, then the Constitution is not for you. But
if you want to make sure that all political entities
are represented and have a voice, and have an ability
to speak against things that they think, or against their interests,
(06:45):
or against their principles, then the Constitution does the job.
And it is very good, not perfect, but very good
at inhibiting governments from doing rash and foolish things. We've
done plenty of ra fullish things, as we'll talk about
in the course of this discussion. But the Constitution has
(07:07):
a tendency to inhibit that it was designed for conflict.
And let me repeat that the Constitution was designed for conflict.
It presumed human beings being human beings would always differ
(07:29):
in their goals and intentions, their conceptions, their interests, the
interests of their region, of their section, of their line
of work. All of these things you could try to
eliminate conflict all together by giving everybody the same ideas,
and well, you don't have a free society if you
have that pure and simple. Or you can allow for
(07:52):
the free play of opinions, of perspectives and create a
mechanism where those different points of view can come into
conflict with one another and fight it out, not literally
fight it out, but fight it out within the legislative
process to decide who prevails. And by that manner you
(08:13):
arrive at a greater degree of unanimity than you're going
to get if you try to make everybody believe the
same thing. So that's what the Constitution's about. It's a
charter for conflict. That's not the way we tend to
teach it in civics class, but it's true. A good
constitution is one that is structured in a way that's
in accordance with human nature. It goes along with our
(08:38):
quarrelsome contentious, disparate, pluralistic nature. It's structured so that conflicts
can be negotiated and channeled for the greater good of
the largest part of the public. I like to compare
it to an internal combustion engine, which has a series
of explosions. When you drive a car, a machine that's
(09:01):
being powered by explosions, constant explosions for the explosions take
place in chambers and cylinders. They drive pistons, they drive
a crankshaft that drives the wheels of your car and
moves it down the road with great power. So the
energy released by these explosions is channeled for the public good.
(09:27):
The Constitution is designed in just such a way. But
it's designed to work with human nature, not against it,
with the grain, not against the grain. And in some sense,
the Constitution provides us with the rules of engagement by
which we conduct politics.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
And a terrific job on the editing, production and storytelling
by our own Monte Montgomery himself a Hillsdale College grad
and a special thanks to Hillsdale College professor Bill McLay.
He's the author of Land of Hope and there's also
a wonderful young reader's edition of Land of Hope. If
you know or have kids in your life, by all means,
(10:08):
pick up this book, go to Amazon dot com or
the usual suspects. And by the way, it's just so true.
Gridlock is a feature of the Constitution, not a bug.
It was designed to manage conflict. The story of us,
the story of America and our constitution. Here on our
American stories,
And we returned to our American stories. Up next another
installment of our series about Us, the Story of America
series with Hillsdale College professor and author of the terrific
book Land of Hope, Bill McLay. Is also a wonderful
young reader's edition of Land of Hope. If you know
or have kids in your life, by all means, pick
(00:31):
up this book at Amazon or the usual suspects. You
won't regret it. When the Framers drafted the Constitution, they
did so with many goals in mind, but one we
might not think about is the goal of managing conflict.
In fact, it could be said that the Constitution was
designed for conflict. Let's get into the story. Here's Bill McClay.
Speaker 2 (00:55):
One of the biggest issues that needed to be resolved
was the question of representation. How were the different entities
that made up the United States to be represented? How
were the people to be represented in the Congress. There
(01:17):
was a conflict right off the bat. Madison introduced a
plan for representation by population. The more populated estate was,
the more representatives it would have in the Congress. And
this was rightly and or understandably objected to by the
(01:38):
small states which had less population, but they were states also,
and they felt representation should be by state, not by population.
So you have these two very different views, both of
which have some legitimacy to them. Neither one is outlandish.
(02:01):
So this was a clash of principle and not just
of competing interests. It was certainly competing interests. But you
should never be content when people tell you this is
a clash over interest, because interests generally have principles lurking
behind them, and this definitely did. What did it mean
to be represented? So what they came up with, with
(02:23):
the help of Roger Sherman of Connecticut, was the Great Compromise.
And the Great Compromise consisted of having a Congress that
had two houses. Two houses one, the lower House, so
called the House of Representatives, would apportion representation according to population,
(02:44):
so the big states like Virginia would get proportionally more
representatives than smaller states like Rhode Island. But there would
be a second house, the Senate, which would be representative
of the states. Every state, irrespective of size or population,
would have two representatives called Senators, and the Senate would
(03:07):
be much smaller as a result. You know, we now
have fifty states only one hundred members of the Senate
many many more members four times over four times as
many members of the House of Representatives today, so this
was the solution. Each house had certain powers that were
(03:28):
exclusive to it. The House of Representatives got to initiate
spending bills appropriations. They had the power of the purse
to initiate bills, but bills had to pass both houses,
so it did have to run the gauntlet of the Senate. Eventually,
appropriations bills did. But the Senate had many many privileges
(03:49):
or responsibilities that were exclusively its. The Senate ratified treaties.
The Senate had an advise and consent function in which
it nominees to the Cabinet and other executive appointments had
to be consented to by the Senates, and would have
(04:09):
the power to examine and validate those nominations. Senators had
six year terms of office, so they didn't have to
run for election as often. That meant they could be
more detached, less worried about doing something on principle that
the population might object to. That's one reason why the
(04:32):
ratification of treaties, for example, would be the province of
the Senate. They could be more deliberative. That people often
refer to the Senate as the world's greatest deliberative body.
That's the idea they could think along and longer track
house of representatives. However, it was a different matter. They
representatives ran every two years, so they were as soon
(04:54):
as they got elected, they were thinking about being re elected,
and they had to be very, very in tune with
what their constituencies were thinking at any particular time. So
it's the more popular house. It's the one more in
touch with the people. By design, the Senate, by design,
is less so more you could say aristocratic in its bearer.
(05:19):
And this is all by design. One other thing that
we should mention is that this new government, this new constitution,
the Constitution of seventeen eighty seven, had much greater powers,
especially in the executive branch. But it was very important
(05:40):
that the powers given to the government were enumerated. That
is their number. They're finite, they're defined. If something wasn't enumerated,
you can do this, you can't do this, then the
assumption was you couldn't do it. The powers that were given.
(06:00):
The charter that was given to the national government enumerated
those powers. It was to be a limited government. That's
what we're getting at here. It's a limited government. They
would also be controlled by the separation of powers and
the clashes that the separation of powers would inevitably result
in to the public good not always the most efficient
(06:23):
way of doing business. If you want to just have
somebody with a stroke of a pen and bring something
into being, then the Constitution is not for you. But
if you want to make sure that all political entities
are represented and have a voice, and have an ability
to speak against things that they think, or against their interests,
(06:45):
or against their principles, then the Constitution does the job.
And it is very good, not perfect, but very good
at inhibiting governments from doing rash and foolish things. We've
done plenty of ra fullish things, as we'll talk about
in the course of this discussion. But the Constitution has
(07:07):
a tendency to inhibit that it was designed for conflict.
And let me repeat that the Constitution was designed for conflict.
It presumed human beings being human beings would always differ
(07:29):
in their goals and intentions, their conceptions, their interests, the
interests of their region, of their section, of their line
of work. All of these things you could try to
eliminate conflict all together by giving everybody the same ideas,
and well, you don't have a free society if you
have that pure and simple. Or you can allow for
(07:52):
the free play of opinions, of perspectives and create a
mechanism where those different points of view can come into
conflict with one another and fight it out, not literally
fight it out, but fight it out within the legislative
process to decide who prevails. And by that manner you
(08:13):
arrive at a greater degree of unanimity than you're going
to get if you try to make everybody believe the
same thing. So that's what the Constitution's about. It's a
charter for conflict. That's not the way we tend to
teach it in civics class, but it's true. A good
constitution is one that is structured in a way that's
in accordance with human nature. It goes along with our
(08:38):
quarrelsome contentious, disparate, pluralistic nature. It's structured so that conflicts
can be negotiated and channeled for the greater good of
the largest part of the public. I like to compare
it to an internal combustion engine, which has a series
of explosions. When you drive a car, a machine that's
(09:01):
being powered by explosions, constant explosions for the explosions take
place in chambers and cylinders. They drive pistons, they drive
a crankshaft that drives the wheels of your car and
moves it down the road with great power. So the
energy released by these explosions is channeled for the public good.
(09:27):
The Constitution is designed in just such a way. But
it's designed to work with human nature, not against it,
with the grain, not against the grain. And in some sense,
the Constitution provides us with the rules of engagement by
which we conduct politics.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
And a terrific job on the editing, production and storytelling
by our own Monte Montgomery himself a Hillsdale College grad
and a special thanks to Hillsdale College professor Bill McLay.
He's the author of Land of Hope and there's also
a wonderful young reader's edition of Land of Hope. If
you know or have kids in your life, by all means,
(10:08):
pick up this book, go to Amazon dot com or
the usual suspects. And by the way, it's just so true.
Gridlock is a feature of the Constitution, not a bug.
It was designed to manage conflict. The story of us,
the story of America and our constitution. Here on our
American stories,
Host
Lee Habeeb
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!