Classical liberalism focuses on the protection of

1.1 The Classical Roots of American Government: Liberalism and Republicanism

The United States of America’s core principles—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—are explored in depth in the next section. To understand where those ideas came from, we first need to explore certain political philosophies that originated in the ancient world and then saw renewed appreciation in 17th- and 18th-century Europe. The two most notable philosophies that influenced the Framers of the United States’ key founding documents were liberalism and republicanism (which differ from today’s liberals and Republicans, as we shall soon see). Contemporary American politics in many respects represents a combination of these two philosophical traditions.

English philosopher John Locke outlined the position that became known as “classical liberalism.” Classical liberalism emphasized the value of individuals in the political system and rejected divine authority in favor of popular sovereignty.

Liberalism and the Basis for Limited Government

The political philosophy of liberalism emphasizes individual liberty, or free will, and equal rights. Classical liberalism focuses on both political and economic freedom and is derived from the 17th-century English philosopher John Locke (1632–1700). Classical liberalism was a response to the idea, common in continental Europe during the Middle Ages (500–1500), that the authority of both kings and the Church was absolute, based on divine right. In other words, absolute authority came from God. Similarly, the average person’s place in society was also determined by God. Therefore, individuals did not get to decide for themselves what constituted a good life, and the notion that they were entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was unthinkable. Moreover, political authority could not be challenged because doing so would be like defying God’s will.

John Locke rejected this argument and argued that individuals are the true basis of legitimate government, a concept known as popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty is the idea that the authority of the government comes from the people. Locke’s view that all people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness relates to popular sovereignty in that the people elect leaders to support and enhance natural rights. Locke’s ideas about natural rights are found in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

Under a system of popular sovereignty, “the people” held political authority and leaders could not govern without their consent. Furthermore, many have concluded that Locke advocated limited government. This meant that the function of government was only to protect individual rights. This also meant that the role of public policy would be limited, because too much state power would threaten individual liberty.

Republicanism and the Basis for Representative Democracy

Although Americans often claim that their government is a democracy, this is not technically the case. Democracy refers to rule by the people. Rather, the American system is more accurately described as an indirect or representative democracy, which means that individual citizens elect representatives to speak and make decisions for them. Elected legislatures make policy; in a representative democracy, those policies will reflect the public will. The Framers set the government up this way because they were concerned that direct democracy, which would involve all citizens debating and voting on issues, would lead to mob rule.

The concept of representative democracy has its roots in republicanism, which is a political philosophy that stresses popular sovereignty. Republicanism held that the government was a commonwealth, which was defined as a civil society of men and literally meant “for the common good.” In fact, the concept of republican government comes from the Latin phrase res publica, which means “public matter.”

Partnership of Citizens

Republicanism rests on the belief that individuals are free and equal and have a public responsibility and a personal stake in promoting a better society. In a classical republican society, the public interest is known and understood by all because the community is small and made up of members who share a common culture and background. Further, individuals share the concept of citizenship, or the idea of belonging to a political community. Citizenship in the republican mindset required the pursuit of virtue. In fact, the attainment of virtue was the central goal of the political community.

The public good could not revolve around the desires of one ruler because that would be the basis for a despotic government, such as the USSR (commonly known as the Soviet Union) under Joseph Stalin between 1929 and 1953 and Haiti under Francois Duvalier between 1957 and 1971, in which the leaders seek to serve only their interests and potentially fall to corruption. Rather, in republicanism, each individual values the common good more highly than his or her own individual good, and this forms the basis of virtue.

However, women, children, and minorities were not generally included in this partnership of citizens. Classical republics, dating back to ancient Rome, limited citizenship to free men. The American republic in the beginning would recognize both free white men and women as citizens, although citizenship rights differed between men and women. The early American republic restricted voting, running for office, and serving on juries to white men who owned property. Only property owners, the thinking went, had a stake in society and could be trusted to promote the public good.

Separation of Powers

The ancient political philosophers, particularly Aristotle, believed that a successful republic could best be achieved through a mixed constitution (also called a mixed government). A mixed constitution system divides power among a monarch, a legislature, and the aristocracy. Politically, this approach entailed the separation of powers into distinct branches of government. This system also allowed the branches to influence decisions made in other branches so that one branch could prevent another from tyrannizing the majority. Separation of powers creates the opportunity for checks and balances. The tendency toward abuse of power, such as with despotism and corruption, would be limited because of the checks placed on power across the branches of government.

But it was not enough to have checks and balances among different branches of government; there also had to be checks and balances within the legislative branch—the branch of government that represents the people and passes laws. Republicanism specifically called for a bicameral legislature (“bi” means two, while “camera” means chamber), which was the division of the legislative body into two chambers.

Key Influences on the Framers’ Ideas About Government

Many of the ideas put forth in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, including the references to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, were originally included in John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, which was published in 1690. The expression that Locke used was “life, liberty, and the preservation of property.” “Happiness” was Thomas Jefferson’s (1743–1826) substitution for Locke’s “property,” in part because he wanted to downplay the emphasis on private property.

Signed on July 4, 1776, the U.S. Declaration of Independence stated the nation’s core values and declared its separation from Great Britain. Many of the ideas presented were originally included in John Locke’s Second Treatise.

The Social Contract

Also put forth in Locke’s Second Treatise was the idea that the individual existed in a state of nature. In the hypothetical state of nature, there is no human law or government, while individuals are born with unalienable or natural rights that are derived from nature or from God. All individuals are equal, especially with their capacity to decide for themselves what type of life they would like to live (this is the concept of human agency, which is the notion that individuals have the capacity to make their own choices). The state of nature can be dangerous because, without laws and government, violent behavior may continue. For example, persons thinking about stealing their neighbor’s property might reconsider if they know that they might be arrested or jailed if they are caught and prosecuted. Locke observed that individuals come together in a social contract and form a government to protect themselves and their rights in order to offset concerns associated with a state of nature.

The idea of a state of nature as a dangerous place, and the remedy of a social contract, was expressed even earlier, in a 17th-century work called Leviathan, by another English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes (1617–1700). Hobbes (1651/1962) argued that life in a state of nature, where predatory and survival instincts dominated human behavior, was “nasty, brutish, and short.” While individuals might enjoy liberty to do as they pleased, they were not free from the threat of harm from others, which included the possibility of an untimely death. The remedy for this was to surrender liberty to a monarch with absolute authority who would provide protection in exchange for loyalty to the monarch. Locke ultimately sought to use this argument to justify the political structure known as a constitutional monarchy—a government where the monarch has to share power with a legislative body such as a parliament or congress.

Because government was created through a social contract, its legitimacy stemmed from popular sovereignty. The central thrust of Locke’s Second Treatise can be briefly summed up as the idea that a community of equal individuals has the right to resist authority that has ceased to be legitimate.

Black and white portrait of Thomas Hobbes and a black and white drawing of Hobbes’s Leviathan book frontispiece. In the upper half of the drawing, a man with a crown, sword, and staff is seen on the horizon. The man is depicted as being much larger than the city beneath him. In the lower half of the drawing, several compartments contain various elements such as weapons, land, and other symbols.

In Leviathan, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that life in the state of nature was “nasty, brutish, and short” and that people should surrender their liberty to a monarch who would protect them.

The Importance of Property

For Locke, individuals surrender their liberties in exchange for political freedom, or the freedom to do what they want within certain, defined limits set by government. Individuals surrender only enough of their liberty so that the government can protect the most fundamental rights to property, which includes land but also all physical possessions. In Locke’s time, property was viewed as an extension of the individual because the property’s value was derived from the labor that the individual put into it. Limiting property rights would be taken as limiting personal freedoms. If the government violated individuals’ property rights, the people would be within their rights to rise up and dissolve or overthrow the government because it had failed to protect their fundamental right to property. Locke’s use of the term “property” defended against the arbitrary exercise of power by any part of government.

The Rule of Law Versus the Rule of Man

The Framers of the Constitution believed that the arbitrary exercise of power—usually by the rule of man—could be checked through the rule of law. This was an important distinction: Men will act in an arbitrary manner when pursuing their passions. Under the rule of law, the passions of men are checked because the law establishes what people may or may not do.

The distinction between the rule of man and the rule of law is important. Greek philosopher Aristotle (362 BC–322 BC) argued that the “law should govern.” This principle suggests that the law limits the behavior of individual citizens whether or not they are part of the government. The rule of law suggests that government officials are limited by the law as much as those whom they govern are. Putting lawmakers above the law invites the abuse of power.

1.2 Core American Values: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

Pursuit of Happiness

Thomas Jefferson expanded on John Locke’s idea of the importance of property, substituting the word happiness for property. Property ownership frees us from control by others. It is a means to an end: human flourishing, or happiness.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson and signed on July 4, 1776, is one of the nation’s foundational documents. A short statement intended to separate the American colonies from Great Britain, the Declaration establishes the nation’s core values. It is also a statement of classical liberal philosophy. American core values can be found in the following section:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Jefferson echoes Locke when he says that individuals are created equal with rights that were granted to them by their Creator (“unalienable”). Rights given by the individuals’ Creator can be taken away only by their Creator and not by government. Among these unalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life means that people control their bodies and that they have the right to life by virtue of their existence. The right to liberty refers to people’s freedom to make decisions about how they want to live their lives. In short, people are free to pursue their self-interests. People’s right to pursue happiness refers to their ability to make choices that will be satisfying to them, whether it be pursuing property or some other passion.

Hobbes and Locke shared the view that individuals and lawmakers should be guided by reason, an idea that greatly influenced the Framers. Governments based on reason are based in law and not arbitrary opinions.

The Influence of Locke on Jefferson

As individuals born with unalienable rights, American colonists came together to create a government whose legitimacy was derived from their consent. By stating that a just government was based on the consent of the governed, Jefferson challenged the idea that the king’s authority was derived from God. In fact, Jefferson argued that because the king’s authority was not based on popular sovereignty, it lacked legitimacy. The colonists were therefore within their rights to reject the king’s authority. The American Revolution essentially dissolved a government that, as Jefferson argued in the Declaration, had ceased to be legitimate.

Courtesy of the Diplomatic Reception Rooms, U.S. Department of State

Thomas Jefferson was heavily influenced by John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government in writing the Declaration of Independence. Like Locke, he rejected the notion that divine authority was the basis of legitimate political authority.

Employing Lockean language of the right of the people to overthrow a government that fails to fulfill its obligations, Jefferson listed the British Crown’s abuses of power. These abuses included the king’s refusal to abide by laws, taxing the people without them having representation in government, quartering troops in people’s homes, maintaining standing armies without the consent of the colonial congress, making judges dependent on the king’s will, denying colonists trial by jury, taking colonists back to England for trial before hostile juries, and other abuses.

The Importance of Republicanism in Shaping the American System of Government

Republicanism in the American colonies was a specific response to the corrupt British political system. It was so ­corrupt, reports historian Gordon Wood, that 18th-century Americans did not believe it would be possible to reform or renew the British Constitution. Americans created their own commonwealths, which they believed would embody virtue because power was divided between the two houses of the legislature and an executive whose power would not be granted through heredity. By dividing power, it was assumed that virtue would balance the natural tendency toward corruption.

Power was further divided within the legislature by adopting the bicameral division of the two houses. The lower chamber, the House of Representatives, represents the people. It was seen as more susceptible to corruption because the people were assumed to be driven by their irrational passions rather than reason. The upper chamber, or Senate, represents the elite and was thought to be driven by reason. The legislative chamber most susceptible to corruption would be checked by the Senate.

Individuals who owned property were thought to be more skilled and talented than others because they were responsible for upholding the economy and the common good. Yet their representatives were regularly exposed to the temptations of power and corruption. Representatives, therefore, needed to stand for frequent elections, which would help hold them accountable to the people. The U.S. Constitution reflects this view in that members of the U.S. House of Representatives serve for 2-year terms, while senators serve for 6-year terms.

In considering the construction of the U.S. Constitution, it is apparent that the Framers were very much influenced by both classical liberal and republican ideologies. The notion that a constitutional system—a system that follows a written set of rules that outline the core ideas about government and the structure of government institutions—would protect liberty was certainly a classical liberal value. That this value could best be protected through the separation of powers was a republican idea. The Constitution Preamble suggests that the United States is liberal (“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, . . . secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”), while the Constitution mandates that the new nation be republican. For example, Article IV, Section 4 states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government.” In practical terms, this means that every state will have separation of powers and checks and balances. All states except Nebraska have a bicameral legislature. Nebraska has a unicameral legislature.

The U.S. Constitution: Institutionalizing American Values

The Declaration of Independence puts forth many core American values. However, these values must be established, which is where the U.S. Constitution comes into play. Even though it does not mention “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” the Constitution creates institutions that reflect and uphold those values. The principal institutions outlined in the Constitution, which have also become values unto themselves, are the separate branches of government. The Constitution creates three branches: the bicameral legislature, which passes laws; the executive, which implements and administers laws; and the judiciary, which determines the constitutionality of those laws.

The Framers assumed that power was to be measured and contained, and they believed it needed to be divided among these separate institutions. This separation of powers ensures that no one branch of government has enough power to infringe upon citizens’ liberties. The separation of powers is the key theme of American constitutional government, and it results in government by consensus, whereby there is general agreement among the actors involved in governing. Separation of powers also effectively reflects the principle of rule of law. Additionally, as will be seen in later chapters, government may struggle with achieving consensus that protects the rights and liberties of its citizens by protecting them from arbitrary use of government power.

1.3 What Is the Nature of U.S. Politics?

Politics functions within government, although they are not the same. There are some who argue that politics is “decisions made in an environment of conflict,” while others, including political scientist Harold Lasswell (1936), suggest that politics is “who gets what, when, and how.” These definitions are related in that they both involve conflict and share the notion that government decisions affect who is impacted, and how.

The notion that politics encompasses “who gets what, when, and how” captures the connection between politics and power. Who gets what says something about who has power. When one gets what one wants says something about how important that individual or group is, and just how much power the person or group has. How the power is obtained speaks to the strength of the individual or groups involved. In a political system where scarce resources are to be distributed, various groups will compete to determine who gets what, how much they get, and under what circumstances they get it. This usually means that if one group derives benefits, others bear costs. Public policies are those laws that government makes within the context of a political process.

The casual observer need only look at the opposing views that routinely occur in policymaking arenas including city councils, state legislatures, and the U.S. Congress to see this in action. In the case of health care reform, those who were previously uninsured will be insured because higher-income persons will pay an additional tax. Patients, taxpayers, and insurance companies are each affected differently.

Some argue that those involved in the conflict are considered actors while those who sit on the sidelines and observe are spectators. Considering the roles of actors and spectators in the political process means that politics becomes a mobilization of bias where actors attempt to show spectators why they should care about and become actively involved with the conflict. This way, the actors build a base of support for their cause and achieve victory if they are able to mobilize enough people to join them. Efforts to reform immigration policy are an example of the mobilization of bias. Groups seeking to open U.S. borders to more immigrants have brought non-immigrant groups to their side by showing how immigration divides families. Some who advocate stricter border patrol suggest that less restrictive immigration controls increase unemployment in various economic sectors such as agriculture and blue-collar labor.

Another example may be found in the teaching of creationism such as was explored in ­Selman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al. (2005). A small-town school board may respond to the wishes of the majority seeking to have creationism taught in schools. Creationism is a literal reading of the Bible that states that the world was created in 6 days. Creationism opposes evolution, the idea that all organisms, including humans and animals, change over time as a result of natural selection and other factors. The minority that wanted evolution taught sought to shape the conflict by arguing that this school board decision was an example of government violating the constitutional concept of separation of church and state. Evolution supporters hoped that those who live in large cities would become involved in an effort to preserve this fundamental value, while those seeking to teach creationism argued that this was a local matter with which outsiders should not be involved. The side that proved to be more persuasive would succeed in getting what it wants, when it wants it, and how it wants it.

A key factor in this understanding of politics is that resolution is achieved through peaceful means. It is when conflict becomes violent that politics can be said to have failed.

How Is American Politics Characterized by Regulation, Distribution, and Redistribution?

American politics certainly involves the related notions of who gets what, when, and how in a decision-making environment. Political scientist Theodore Lowi (1964) identified three types of activities characteristic of American politics: regulation, distribution, and redistribution.

Regulation involves restricting the activities, or limiting the rights, of some for the benefit—usually the protection—of others. In other words, one group will bear a cost so that another group can enjoy a benefit. In this vein, regulation is considered to be zero sum, because for every winner, there is a loser. As an example, the government seeks to regulate air pollution by requiring power plants to include scrubbers in their emissions stacks. The power plants incur a cost because they have to spend money that they otherwise would not while those who live near the plants derive the benefit of cleaner air even though they did not pay any more for the cleaner air than did others who live further away.

By contrast, distribution involves the political system providing benefits to whatever group makes a request. The costs of distribution are not borne by any clearly identifiable group, but instead are passed on to everyone. Consider the following scenario: Congress passes a budget in which farmers receive millions of dollars from the federal government, banks receive millions more, and a variety of other groups receive something. Because the payouts all ultimately come from tax dollars, all taxpaying citizens cover the cost. This is considered distributive.

Redistribution involves taking from one group in society—usually in the form of a tax—and giving to others—usually in the form of a program. An example of this might be a tax on individuals with annual incomes above a certain level, such as $1 million, to pay for a health care program that benefits the poor. As with regulation, with redistribution it is clear who benefits and who bears the cost.

How Is American Politics Rooted in Core American Values?

We can look further into what lies beneath these ideas. Politics over who gets what, when, and how, or regulation, distribution, and redistribution, is really the public and practical expression of disagreements about the meaning of core values. For instance, some argue that regulating pollution may deprive manufacturers of their liberties or property rights while others argue that regulating pollution preserves the public’s right to breathe clean air and maintain health. As we will see, each conception of liberty has some validity, and it is different constructions of these and other concepts that shape the conflict around which American politics is made.

Though the concept of liberty is foundational to the American government, it means different things to different people.

If you were to stop average Americans on the street and ask what America stands for, most would probably answer with some combination of liberty; democracy; the right to pursue individual economic interest; the right to free speech, peaceable assembly, and religious practice; and a constitutional government. Americans do not all agree on exactly what those concepts mean, but each likely believes strongly in his or her own interpretations. As a result, the way these concepts are interpreted in society is a matter of politics.

The concepts surrounding what America stands for are all rooted in the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Consider that an American’s right to “life” often means that he or she has a right to physical protection. More than that, it means that the state may not take a citizen’s life without due process of law. This type of liberty is known as negative liberty. Negative liberty means that limitations are placed on state action, as the government is required to protect liberty by ensuring that it cannot be infringed upon. Freedom to travel is a negative liberty. But, as passage of the health care law illustrates, the right to “life” could also mean that the state has an obligation to ensure that people live long and healthy lives. Therefore, it is not enough to limit the actions of the government so that a person can live; the state must actually provide people with health care services. This type of liberty is known as positive liberty. Positive liberty means that the state takes active steps to guarantee that citizens’ liberties will have meaning. An example of positive liberty is the right to counsel, as found in the Sixth Amendment and reinforced in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). Many claim that conservatives favor negative liberty while liberals favor positive liberty.

As a further example, imagine that you are looking for a job. Negative liberty, in this scenario, means that the state cannot stop you from taking a job that is offered in the marketplace. But positive liberty means that the government must provide you with a job if you are unable to find one on your own. Both views are captured in the Declaration of Independence and in the promotion of the general welfare that appears in the Constitution’s preamble and elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution. Although American politics is characterized by various definitions of politics, it also revolves around competing interpretations of core values that ask what “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” really mean.