The Experiment Continues: Why Americans Prefer Divided Government – Inside Sources

“No taxation without representation!” is the most famous rallying cry of the American Revolution. The phrase emerged in 1768, but it originated in a 1764 pamphlet, “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,” by Massachusetts lawyer James Otis, who argued that taxing the colonists without their consent violated the British constitution.

Requiring the consent of the governed and limiting the power of government is a core American principle.

We tend to think of the revolutionaries as concerned primarily with the British government’s usurpations. The revolutionary generation was equally concerned about American officials abusing their authority and realized that their sacrifices (of “Lives, … Fortunes, and … sacred Honor”) would be in vain if they ended up substituting a local tyrant (or tyrants) for a foreign one.

This was apparent 250 years ago in Concord, Mass., as state officials were preparing to organize a constitutional convention. Not so fast, said Concord citizens at their Oct. 22, 1776, town meeting, where they adopted a resolution  (1) affirming that Massachusetts needed a Constitution, but (2) making it clear that the people, not government officials, should write it. Nine other towns concurred.

The Massachusetts legislature nevertheless went ahead with its plans. In June 1777, the legislature declared itself a convention and began writing a new Constitution, approving it in February 1778. The towns of Massachusetts, however, rejected it by an overwhelming five-to-one margin, arguing, in part, that the legislature was not the proper body for the job.

In 1779, the General Court turned to voters to clear things up, asking, “Do the people want a new Constitution now?” and “Are they willing that their representatives to the General Court … call a convention?” At town meetings across the state, the people voted “yes” on both questions.

Their reasoning went back to the October 1776 Concord town meeting resolution. While agreeing that Massachusetts needed a Constitution, Concord’s citizens recognized that the legislature was the wrong body to write it because “the Same Body that forms a Constitution (would) have of Consequence a power to alter it,” and, in the same vein, “a Constitution alterable by the Supreme Legislative is no Security at all to the Subject against any Encroachment of the Governing part on any, or on all of their Rights and privileges.”

Ronald Reagan stated the same principle more broadly during his 1984 presidential campaign, telling voters any “government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you’ve got.”

Two hundred fifty years after the Concord resolution, maybe we need to resurrect such thinking.

The genius of the American system — and American voters — is the preference for divided government. This ensures that no single individual, faction, party or arm of government can make all the rules.

There is nothing unusual about this. The American people have found that it’s the best way to protect their interests. As a consequence, the last time a president’s party controlled both chambers of Congress for four straight years was during Jimmy Carter’s presidency (January 1977-January 1981). Score one for the people.

This hasn’t stopped power-hungry politicians from both parties from pushing the boundaries on unilateral action. Power grabs have taken many forms, but executive orders best illustrate the trend. Democrat Woodrow Wilson averaged 225 executive orders yearly during his presidency. Franklin D. Roosevelt averaged 307 yearly during his 12 years in office. Donald Trump is averaging 171 yearly during his second term.

An executive order’s effect, however, is usually short-lived. What one president’s pen giveth, the next president’s pen can taketh away.

Restructuring the government (always labeled as “reform”) is another strategy politicians use to enhance their power. Many Democrats this year seek to expand the Supreme Court, change Senate rules to end the filibuster, and restructure or eliminate the Electoral College. Some Republicans want to limit early voting and mail-in voting.

Keep in mind, it’s not your power they’re trying to enhance; it’s their own power. Perhaps, like the citizens of Concord in 1776, we need to assert our right to decide such things.