...because when there is in the same City (government) a Principality, an Aristocracy, and a Popular Government (Democracy), one watches the other.
This sounds suspiciously like our three branches and their checks and balances. In his study of human forms of government and his theory on how each form degenerates into the next, he covers much ground which hopefully wasn't unfamiliar to our founders.
My question is, why is Machiavelli not more widely read, and what evidence is there of his influence on the Founding of the United States of America? The obstacles toward forming a government of the people were rigorously debated during the Continental Congress (and the Constitutional Congress that followed). Were the lessons of Machiavelli ever credited to him or were they borrowed for the convenience of the general discussion?
Posts
2 comments:
The political tradition in England had developed this line of thought and fashioned it's political institutions accordingly - the one in the king, the few in the aristocracy / House of Lords and the many in the House of Commons. The Founders were aware of this distinction and worked to bake it into the Constitution,as detailed by John Adams:
http://www.constitution.org/jadams/ja1_23.htm
I forgot to add: this was partly the philosophy behind having Senators selected by sate legislatures, rather than eleced directly by the People. Different modes of selection between the House and Senate meant a different constituency that each chamber answered to, resulting in different motivations and modes of operation.
Post a Comment