How
much influence should large metro areas have in Statewide elections? That is a question nearly all the States face
today. Kentucky’s recent election for
governor puts the question starkly before us:
In a State with 120 counties, only 23 have decided the winner. The results of Louisiana’s choice for governor are similar, though less
lopsided.
The
backcountry is not being well-served by this system. The more traditional voices of the sparsely
populated ‘red counties’ are being drowned out by the overwhelming numbers of
the enemies of tradition in the ‘blue counties’. The strife this creates is obvious for all to
see, but it is the necessary outcome of adhering to the doctrine of the
numerical majority.
There
is no reason, however, to bind ourselves forever to the rotting carcass of this
pestilential political ideal. It is time
for what Englishmen and Romans (the spirits of both of whom have been very much
present in the South) have excelled at so often in their histories: a little prudent reform. No building castles in the clouds; rather,
only realistic, concrete proposals for human beings living in this part of the
world.
As
we have said above, two main divisions exist in the States at the present
moment: the untraditional large cities
and the traditional hinterland of the counties.
A way for the two to protect their interests at the State level is
needed. John C. Calhoun nearly two
hundred years ago, provided us with an answer:
the plural executive, each with the power of veto.
His
examination of Roman and English history showed him the benefits of this type
of system. What he says about Ancient
Rome, which had developed a system by which the two main classes in the Roman
lands, the patricians and plebeians, could veto one another’s proposed laws as
well as stop the execution of them, is worth examining. In the passage below, Mr Calhoun details the
benefits such a system bestowed upon Old Rome, exactly the kinds of benefits
the States are missing out on with their current winner-take-all, single
executive system:
No measure or movement
could be adopted without the concurring assent of both the patricians and
plebeians, and each thus became dependent on the other; and, of consequence,
the desire and objects of neither could be effected without the concurrence of
the other. To obtain this concurrence, each was compelled to consult the
goodwill of the other, and to elevate to office, not those only who might have
the confidence of the order to which they belonged, but also that of the other.
The result was, that men possessing those qualities which would naturally
command confidence—moderation, wisdom, justice, and patriotism—were elevated to
office; and these, by the weight of their authority and the prudence of their
counsel, combined with that spirit of unanimity necessarily resulting from the concurring
assent of the two orders, furnish the real explanation of the power of the
Roman State, and of that extraordinary wisdom, moderation, and firmness which
in so remarkable a degree characterized her public men.
--John C. Calhoun, ‘Speech on the Force Bill’, Union and Liberty:
The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun, ed. Ross M. Lence
(Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1992). 11/7/2019.
Now,
the best system of government the States have lived under seems to have been
the one they were born into – not one stitched together from new theories and
speculations but one of inherited, time-honored lore and customs. In it, each colony/State/ethnos was able to
live life according to its own folkways without interference from the
others. The harmony of all of them was
maintained by occasional regulations from the King of England and his
Parliament, which were enforced by the royal governors and other officials
appointed by the Crown. But local
political bodies (town councils, county courts, State Houses of
Representatives, jury trials, etc.) kept careful watch and objected if any of
them overstepped proper bounds. But if
the peoples of the States will not have it (and various strains of ‘American
exceptionalism’ make many people recoil from it as though it were a venomous
snake), then what Mr Calhoun proposed with his plural executive is a good
alternative.
One
of the worst political mistakes the States have made has been to jumble all
ages, classes, occupations, etc. into one undifferentiated mass of voters and
then ask this polyglot creation to speak with a unified, harmonious voice. What we have gotten instead is unending
friction and dissatisfaction. Instead of
trying to enforce a false, chimerical unity, we need to winnow and
separate. Let the two dominant interests
in each State, the rural and the urban, elect its own executive (the current
governor chosen by a Statewide vote would no longer be necessary). Population density above or below a certain
threshold would qualify a county as either urban or rural. Only when the two executives are in agreement
should a proposed law or executive order be enacted, or an executive action
undertaken. But if either one of them
object, the proposal will not be enacted or undertaken.
If
this makes political action at the State level more difficult (and it probably
would), then it is a great opportunity for local institutions to take the reins
and govern. This is where most decisions
ought to be made, in counties and towns, neighborhoods and churches.
Because
of this, everyone would have a little breathing space, a little elbow room, a
chance to tend and nurture his own culture and appreciate the good in the
culture of his red or blue neighbors in the other counties. And through this arrangement, perhaps more
cooperation and less partisanship could be found at the State level. But if not, then at least each culture will
be able to live peaceably enough under the diligent guardianship of the
co-executive it has sent to the capital to protect its way of life.
But
none of this will happen so long as the erroneous doctrine of the Supreme Court
in Washington City of ‘one man, one vote’ is in force. . . .
--
Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England,
South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð,
unworthy though we are!
Anathema to the Union!
