Both Parties Fight for Weapon That Will Turn on Them

The escalating political battles in America today share a troubling pattern: both sides are increasingly consumed by fear of what their opponents might do once they control the levers of federal power.

From Supreme Court appointments to presidential authority, from the reach of federal agencies to the scope of congressional power, contemporary political warfare revolves around a single anxiety about institutional control, according to Steve Wolfer writing in Washington Examiner.

Yet this focus on who should exercise power may be leading the nation away from a more fundamental question: how much power should any faction be permitted to wield in the first place?

That essential question was the one America’s Founders grappled with when designing the constitutional system. Their answer was not rooted in the specific technological or geopolitical circumstances of 1787, but in something far more enduring and unchanging: human nature itself.

The Constitution as Restraint, Not Enablement

Today’s political culture increasingly treats the Constitution as an outdated impediment rather than a carefully designed safeguard. Critics dismiss the Electoral College as obsolete, condemn the Senate as undemocratic, view federalism as an inconvenience, and regard separation of powers as bureaucratic inefficiency.

The prevailing sentiment suggests modern America requires more centralized national institutions, faster decision-making processes, and fewer constitutional limitations on government action.

But the Founders were not designing a system optimized for efficiency or speed. They were constructing a framework to contain the eternal dangers posed by concentrated power in human hands.

James Madison articulated this principle clearly in Federalist No. 51, observing that if people were angels, government would be unnecessary, and if angels governed, no controls on government would be needed.

The first observation explains why government must exist. The second explains why government itself must face strict limitations.

Human Nature Does Not Change With Office

Holding public office does not transform ordinary individuals into virtuous angels. Elections do not eliminate personal ambition. Political appointments do not erase self-interest. Power does not fundamentally alter human character.

The Founders arrived at this understanding through exhaustive study of why previous republics throughout history had collapsed. Across different civilizations and centuries, they identified recurring patterns: power concentrates over time, political factions prioritize victory over principle, majorities become tyrannical, minorities pursue special privileges, and frightened populations surrender liberties they once considered non-negotiable.

While technology evolves dramatically across generations, human nature remains constant.

A Framework Built on Dispersed Authority

The constitutional system represents the Founders’ response to this enduring challenge. Where the Declaration of Independence articulates why legitimate government exists — to secure equal rights for every individual — the Constitution addresses the operational question of how political power must be organized to keep those rights secure.

Separation of powers makes concentration of authority difficult to achieve. Checks and balances ensure that ambition counteracts ambition. Federalism disperses governmental authority across multiple levels. Regular elections return sovereignty to citizens, while constitutional rights place fundamental liberties beyond the reach of temporary majorities.

These structural arrangements frequently frustrate political actors across the spectrum. That frustration is by design.

Concentrated power moves swiftly and decisively. Liberty often survives precisely because power is forced to slow down, address objections, obtain broader consent, and overcome institutional resistance.

The Eternal Temptation of Efficiency

Every generation grows impatient with constitutional restraints. The wish list is familiar: if only the president commanded more authority, if only Congress could act faster, if only courts would settle controversial matters permanently, if only objectionable speech could be restricted.

The specific objectives vary by era and faction. The underlying temptation to bypass constitutional limitations remains constant.

The Founders did not create a perfect system. The original toleration of slavery represents an undeniable moral failure, and the Constitution has rightly been amended over time.

Yet before dismantling the structural framework they established, Americans should understand the fundamental problem they sought to address. The Founders could not have anticipated the internet, artificial intelligence, or nuclear weapons. They grasped something more fundamental: they understood human nature itself.

They knew ambitious leaders would invoke extraordinary circumstances to justify extraordinary powers. They recognized that citizens would sometimes surrender those powers because individual concessions appear reasonable, temporary, and necessary in isolation.

A Blueprint for Containing Power

The Constitution is commonly described as a blueprint for government. More accurately, it should be understood as a blueprint for containing governmental power.

The Founders were not asking how to identify better rulers. They were confronting a more profound question: how can free people govern themselves without eventually surrendering their freedom?

That question has not become obsolete with time. If anything, it grows more urgent as federal power expands and political polarization intensifies.

Wolfer is the author of The Democratic Cycle: Why Self-Government Is Failing — and How to Repair It, examining the principles and institutions of American constitutional self-government.

With information from Washington Examiner