Madison on Wisconsin: What Would the Founder Think?
James Madison would recoil in horror at the scene now playing out in his namesake town in Wisconsin. But the great republican Constitution-maker’s revulsion would not be brought on by the sight of mobs in the street or under the dome, nor even at a glimpse of Democrat senators in full retreat, seeking shelter at the Tilted Kilt.
No, the governmental crisis against which the 18-century Virginian would declaim with vigor is the danger of democracy … on both sides of this conflict.
Madison’s genius — revealed in the Virginia Resolves which formed the framework for debate in the summer of 1787 — came in recognizing that, in a republic unlike a monarchy, the people don’t need to be shielded from government actions against the whole populace. Instead, citizens need protection against the wild sweep of their own passions that would lead them to use democratic majorities to trample the natural rights of the minority. On the other hand, Madison knew we also risk falling under minority rule if any special interest controls enough of the power levers to scuttle the majority will, or even to supplant it with their own narrow agenda. So, our hallowed system of checks and balances represents the attempt by Madison and others to protect the republic from elective tyranny.
Leap forward to modern day Madison, Wisconsin, and we find a special-interest minority — the big unions backed by President Obama’s campaign machine — facing off against a fresh Republican majority that seems to be saying “we won, so we make the rules.”
So, the Madisonian question here isn’t primarily about whether collective bargaining rights should be limited to salary issues, or whether budget deficits require wage and benefit adjustments.
The real question for a republican lawmaker is how do we deliberately craft a solution that submits to the supreme law of the state established by the sovereign people, while reflecting the will of the majority and protecting the rights of the minority.
Of course, this is not to say that the minority has the prerogative to bind the majority, through mob tactics, to a system of ever-escalating costs with never-escalating value. In fact, the threat of this type of minority rule is precisely why we have bicameral legislatures, and largely independent executive and judiciary branches.
James Madison, in addition to being the political philosopher of the age and perhaps of all intervening ages, was also a practical politician who had served in the Virginia House of Burgesses and in the Continental Congress.
Madison knew that philosophy and politics must meet and embrace, and that this “group hug” typically squeezes a little virtue out of the philosopher.
A second great Madisonian insight was that the national government would relate directly to individuals rather than to states, as had been the case under the ineffective Articles of Confederation. At the federal convention, he didn’t get all he wanted on this score — his proposal that Congress could veto any state law, for example, failed. However, the basic idea survived. Congress could make laws and levy taxes that applied directly to the people, without mediating approval by state governments.
Likewise, in Madison, Wisconsin, today’s big-R Republicans should remember that they legislate with authority from the people, and that their acts impact directly on the people. They are not accountable to any special-interest group, including unions, nor do they negotiate the terms of legislation with them.
The supra-partisan objective in operating a focused, effective government should be to structure employment relationships that value individual initiative, innovation, and industry. These characteristics not only produce good value for the taxpayer, but create a rewarding work environment for the employee. Win-Win Wisconsin.
Madison would remind us that when a public officer leaves the jurisdiction of the state in order to avoid the obligations of public office, he should be considered to have resigned. The state senate should declare the absent senators’ seats vacant and hold special elections to fill them. Of course if the incumbents want to contest that action in court, they would have to return to Wisconsin.
And those miscreants hiding out in another state should be referred to as FLEEBAGGERS.
Dear Dr. Bones,
What’s in a name, tra-lal-la?
The pajamatarian _du jour_ wants to dance on Mr. Madison’s grave for apparently no better reason than that the pioneer paleface invaders of Upper Chîzestán once named a town after the poor man. ( For that matter is it perfectly certain that it was not Dolly instead of Jemmy thus honoured? )
What’s sauce for the virile ganders of selfservatism will do for us silly geese, at least in this case.
So, then:
(1) ‘Hooverville’ and “Rio Limbaugh” speak for themselves, prosopographically, but the case is far different with “Wingnut City.” Perhaps we ought to foxcuckoo up a brief account of the heroic secret-sector career and ever-immortal poetic works of George Washin’ton Wingnut. Have a word with the Muses about it, please, sir.
(2) And speaking of prosopography, ¿how about “¡Scott Ott barks rot!”?
Happy daze.
–JHM
You should avoid using mind-altering drugs so early in the morning – then attempting to blog.
Your post was totally devoid of intelligence or even humor – so your efforts to discredit Mr. Ott’s fine post fell flat!
Nah, that’s not it. This is Modern LibSpeak for, “I am frustrated and Dazed and Confused”. Realistically, a couple bongs hits might help.
And it does at least have a bit more coherence than many of Mr. President’s policies.
Please tell me that you are still living with your parents, and don’t vote.
“Leap forward to modern day Madison, Wisconsin, and we find a special-interest minority — the big unions backed by President Obama’s campaign machine — facing off against a fresh Republican majority that seems to be saying “we won, so we make the rules.”
Funny, but isn’t that what Obama said to the Republicans during the Obamacare debate? “We won” and “Elections have consequences?” Now that the Democrats are NOT in power, they don’t seem to like that too much. I hope those democrats, all of them flunkies and political hacks for the labor unions, choke on those words.
That is correct, we can all be thankful that James Madison didn’t get his way at the Constitutional Convention, or the ratification debates that followed. His views on National Government, had they been implemented, would have been put to use by central planners (i.e. Alexander Hamilton) leading to an even less perfect union than the one we have. It was good that cooler heads prevailed, the resulting political ties were well balanced between the need to provide external security along with maximum internal liberty being maintained. James Madison was wrong concerning the structure of a national government. It is useful to look back and realize that although the Articles of Confederation were too weak, the Constitution as envisioned by the Federalists would have been too centralized and powerful. The balance struck is as close to perfect as mankind is likely to create without direct divine intervention.
When I saw this title, I feared that it would be one-sided Founder cherry-picking, but the writer comes up with a well-balanced piece, which I believe gets to the heart of the Wisconsin stand-off. Obama and the Dems went at least one bridge too far on healthcare because they COULD…and have paid the price. There is a lesson to be learned there.
Years ago when I lived in Wisconsin, Madison and the University of Wisconsin was full of communist and it looks like it hasn’t changed. Back then it would have been a toss up on if Madison, WI or Berkeley, CA were further left. I really think that James Madison would not appreciate them using his name.
Republicans are not at war with people who, often involuntarily, pay union dues. In fact, Republicans want what’s best for government employees.
This is silly. Public service unions benefit from salaries that are much higher than what comparable skills and effort receive in the private sector. What is in the best interest of overpaid civil servants is not what’s in the best interest of the state. This is a battle against union monopoly power. Public sector workers have job security and working condition benefits not enjoyed in the private sector. They should never be paid more than what they would earn for similar work in the private sector.
Offhand, I can’t tell you what Madison would think, but here’s what Edmund Burke, Irish philosopher and a contemporary of our Founding Fathers, had to say 200 years ago:
“It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare.”
Here’s a link to a companion video we did this week on PJTV with Bill Whittle and Stephen Green.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGMqnoLqHR0
I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the good will of the demonstrators in Madison to assert itself. And I find it beyond travesty that an individual such as this can come even remotely near the office held by the likes of James Madison.
In his own words: “Obama’s SEIU Ties Coming Home to Roost”:
http://potterwilliamsreport.com/2011/02/21/obama-jan.aspx?ref=rss
During an interview Sept. 27, 2010, union leader Trumka said he got into the labor movement not because he wanted to negotiate wages. He got into it because he saw it a vehicle to massive social change to include lots of people. He has been asking their state, feds and central labor councils to reach out and start building a permanent coalition with young workers’ groups, student groups, religious groups, anyone that is a progressive group, to make them part of the structure. He said they have progressive groups all over. It seems as though the unions want to be the third party in our country, and they can’t do it without the workers’ dues. Between the governor wanting the teachers to only bargain over wages and wanting the unions to collect their own dues, I can see why Trumka is rallying all of his troops to fight the governor. Obviously he doesn’t care about the wages — but he cares about getting the dues that the state takes out of the workers’ pay. What is it going to take to stop Trumka from continuing to build the progressive structure?
Here’s what it will take to put a stop to this: it’ll take somebody with the courage and the political will to determine what crimes have been committed and to indict all the perpetrators.
Rather than trying to set up a third party, Trumka has been working hand-in-glove with the Obama administration and the Democrats. Here’s what I mean:
Howard Dean bribes Wisconsin “fleebaggers” to stay away and not vote
Yoo-hoo, everyone: This is a FELONY. Why haven’t Howard Dean and ALL the “fleebaggers” been arrested?
Arrest them all,( for collusion to take over the government) and most of all the Union bosses who are getting rich off the union members.
Well done and well written Scott Ott !
“In other words, Wisconsin Republicans, and their associates nationwide, have an opportunity to teach the public school teachers about the principles that undergird our great republic, to rise above the partisan jousting, and to thus demonstrate credible concern for the general welfare of all citizens.”
Principles that undergirded the nascent republic of Madison were the rapacious acquisition of property, the exploitation of free labor, smuggling, avoid taxes, paying others to fight in their place, dueling, but I digress. The quorum busting by democrats is an ancient palimentary dodge motivated by a misguided ardent sycophant on mission to create a one corporatist nation through this whole process. All of this founder invoking and soaring rhetoric fills me flipant inspiration. For that I am grateful and proud to stand next to misguided patriots who seek to dimish the weak in favor of the strong. I hope you can see that public policy is by and for the people. The Federalist papers clearly point out that a pluralism was what the founders strove to forge out of the wilderness. They new that corporations could and often did pollute the culture by those who would make themselves king. Unions on the other hand have stood as that stalwart. The have been the builders of our nation, and economic middle class, whose fathers and children have protected this nation on the assembly lines, the infantry lines, and yes even the picket lines and classrooms.
Would you consider the possibility that, though such egregious behaviors occurred in 18th century America, perhaps in some cases at the hands of those who helped to frame and ratify the Constitution, yet the Constitution itself is not founded on such nefarious principles?
For example ‘avoiding taxes’. The failure of the states to remit tax money requisitioned by Congress under the Articles of Confederation was actually a driving force behind the calling of the federal convention of 1787.
In addition, many people of that era abhored slavery, and the slave trade…including some of those who owned them, and pressed the point in the convention. But the 3/5ths compromise was more a concession to commercial and political reality than than a ‘principle’ undergirding the Constitution. This despicable act seemed like the only way to preserve the union from collapse, and division by foreign powers. This is not to defend the great harm done by the compromise — which locked in slave-state control of the House, Presidency, judiciary and state legislatures which soon mimicked the federal model.
I would also respectfully suggest that if you re-read your comment, you’ll find the view that everyone is corrupt and venal except the union leaders who are virtuous, selfless, and America’s last best hope. I’m being a bit facetious, because the point of my essay was to find a principled way forward, tacitly acknowledging the sinfulness of all men.
Corporate fat cats and union-boss fat cats come from the same litter….the same as you and I.
Thanks for taking the time to express yourself.
Scott Ott
I’ve no doubt that citizens have the right to form unions and collectively bargain with private sector businesses. I also have no doubt that “Right to work” statutes are absolutely required to protect employers and workers from the potential abuses that always arise from unconstrained Unionism. Just as there must be some legal protection against business interests joining together to create an unfair climate for consumers and or workers.
I have no doubt that if our founders had conceived of the “Public Employee Union” and inevitable abuses this could (and ALWAYS has) created the Constitution would prohibit them. Further the public union “right” to collective bargaining is nonsense as it is neither recognized by the constitution nor by Judicial ruling. If a State or the Federal Government should decide to grant the “privilege” of collective bargaining that “privaledge” may also be revoked the same way it was granted, for cause or giggles.
The United States itself and its constitution was in fact born out of a labor dispute over working conditions, the mismanagement of corporate revenues, and pay. So the founders struck and seized the means of productions from the original owners. Ten they redistributed the wealth among themselves. I understand that corruption is universal and the founders apparently agreed to be corrupt together. But a funny thing happened along the way the state they created began to actually work. Laws for taxation and labor reasonably agreed to arose and prosperity ensued. Somehow along the way laborers began to understand that they like the could demand and seize God given rights as just as the founders had. Thus men greedy men both managerial and labor face off like the founders faced off the king. But instead of seizing the assets they forged a new “land” wherein they would trade their time for money. Again prosperity ensued.
Of course I recognize there is balancing social political and economic triangulation that has always undergired the economics of business and collective United States. It has been influenced by competing money, morality, ethics, reason, luck, sex, and yes even corruption. I would say that it is from those competing ingredients our melting pot has prospered.
History has shown that the so called high moral principles of the founders had to be compromised in order to just accept the contradictions of the original national master union agreement aka the constitution. The fact that dealing with labor is a real grownup job. Also the supposition that founders might have disapproved is wet corn flakes. Or I suppose you can ask the English about what the King thought of the founders little strike.
God and Country and Hard whiskey
“The real question for a republican lawmaker is how do we deliberately craft a solution that submits to the supreme law of the state established by the sovereign people, while reflecting the will of the majority and protecting the rights of the minority.”
Beautifully put, Scott.
My belief is that we must, in our public discourse begin with a statement of the problem such as you’ve done. So often we scream at each other, one side hollering “liberty” and the other side hollering “fairness at all costs!” We can’t have both, so we must distill the conversation down to a statement such as you’ve made above, that outlines in broad terms what we can all agree upon, and then discover detailed pragmatic solutions.
The founders, for all their rapaciousness and ill-dealing, were geniuses.
“The real question for a republican lawmaker is how do we deliberately craft a solution that submits to the supreme law of the state established by the sovereign people, while reflecting the will of the majority and protecting the rights of the minority.”
Beautifully put, Scott.
My belief is that we must, in our public discourse begin with a statement of the problem such as you’ve done. So often we scream at each other, one side hollering “liberty” and the other side hollering “fairness at all costs!” We can’t have both, so we must distill the conversation down to a statement such as you’ve made above, that outlines in broad terms what we can all agree upon, and then discover detailed pragmatic solutions.
The founders, for all their rapaciousness and ill-dealing, were geniuses.
Our founders, would be appalled at what our politicians are getting away with today, because we let them. Our founders were some of the best negotiators that ever drew up a plan to govern. What is happening in America today is what Madison, Jefferson, Franklin and a lot of our founders feared would happen, if the people gave up their rights to govern themselves and depended on a consolidated federal government for their needs. We live in a Republic or we are suppose to, not a democracy big difference. Democracies never last very long and always end bad for the poor people!!
You’ve got that right! A democracy is not at all the same thing as a republic. Democracy means mob rule, both literally and figuratively. Our Founders wanted to make sure that we would NOT devolve into a democracy.
Unions may have had their place at one time but the problem is the “workers party” seized the opportunity long, long time ago to not only misdirect the blue-collar workers but also spread deep dark ugly untruths which unfortunately they not only swallowed but have allowed the leaders to make them into an angry mob–most of them unsure of why they are angry. But they are told to be angry and angry they must be.
It makes me wonder how many of the angry people have actually read the history of unions and the violence they have perpetrated upon innocent people. Google history of the Teamster Unions for instance and read about the “Communist” Minnesota riots of 1934 and the many years following the riots of mob influence of the Teamsters.
Also go to SocialistWorkers.org. They are 100 percent behind the Wisconsin madness . I think if one opens their eyes to who is preaching to whom, one might be surprised
FDR and Union Tyranny
As a former, retired, teacher union member whose father was a member of a company union, I don’t in the least feel hypocritical in opposing the actions of Wisconsin teachers. Bottom line is, they’re wrong, in the extreme.
When I began as a public school English teacher in the early 70′s in suburban Long Island, I had no intention of joining either the local or state unions. Even then, the state union was decidedly liberal and, in fact, there was a movement afoot to expunge the word, “union,” in favor of “association” in order to preserve a sense of teacher professionalism.
“Union” won out in that debate, not that it mattered since the umbrella organization, the National Education Association, the NEA, which partners with the American Federation of Teachers, the AFT, is a de facto union, with 3.2 million members.
In any event, during my first year I refused on principle to join the local but succumbed in my second after repeated interruptions of my class by an importuning union rep. As it turned out, I subsequently learned that the district administration, in conjunction with the union, frowned on those who didn’t join and if I hadn’t signed on I may not have had a job my third year.
With that as preface and introduction to the current education crisis in Madison, Wisconsin and elsewhere, it’s been more than disquieting to discover that I was at least in partial agreement with the greatest liberal icon in the history of liberal icons, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Not that FDR was opposed to unions or collective bargaining–far from it–but he knew the inherent dangers of public employees negotiating with governments via union representatives.
As he said, ”All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public-personnel management. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations:” http://tiny.cc/pnwwf
Apparently, today’s public employee unions never got that message as to the “insurmountable limitations” and the impossibility of such situations. Nor can they seem to grasp FDR’s reminder that, in collective bargaining with governments, “The employer is the whole people,” meaning that, seated on the other side of the negotiating table, are not representatives of some greedy corporation but the American public.
Extrapolating from Roosevelt’s words, when public employee unions demonstrate and agitate and demand, they are demonstrating and agitating against “the whole people” and their demands are not being made against a mayor, governor, or president but rather against every taxpayer.
President Ronald Reagan . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=3744)
I want States to stop allowing government workers unions to control the political and economic situation. As long as we have unions determining elections, taxpayers are going to get shafted. Collective bargaining is really not the problem. It’s the unrestrained power that public service unions have over electing politicians that is the bigger issue.