Exam 1, Federal History

Autocracy or Autocratic System of Government: Government by a single, non-elected leader. Examples of autocratic systems today include absolute monarchies as seen with the King in Saudi Arabia, or dictatorships like Bashar al-Assad in Syria. There are no elections that put this leader into power, and there may even be justifications like divine right to rule, or simple inheritance of power from the previous king or dictator. 

Aristocracy or Aristocratic System of Government: Rule by "the best." Usually the best means the wealthiest and most well-educated in a society. The justification for this system generally comes down to elite education and a high degree of wealth inevitably translate into successful governance for the nation. 

Oligarchy or Oligarchic System of Government: Government by a small group that is not accountable to the citizens. One can make the argument that oligarchy is often the (inevitable) result of a corrupt aristocracy. When the wealthiest and most powerful in society are put in charge of the nation, the likely outcome is that the political leadership only cares about their already wealthy and powerful friends. This creates an oligarchy which is government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. The best example of an oligarchy in the world today would be Russia. It is common to hear people refer to the "oligarchs of Russia" as the roughly one-hundred people around President Vladimir Putin who have gained their incredible wealth and power thanks to his extremely corrupt leadership. 

Democracy or Democratic System of Government: A system that allows the citizens to select their leaders. This is an easy one for us since the United States is a classic example of a democracy. In the U.S. citizens are able to vote in and vote out our representatives in government. There are many modern-day examples of this system including Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. 

Totalitarian System of Government: Governments that recognize no limits to their power. The difference between totalitarian and authoritarian governments can be a little tricky, and arguably it is a difference of degrees. When you think of a totalitarian system, think of the root word involved here which is total. This is a system of government where the dictator(s), there may be more than one leader, has total power within that country. There are not many clear examples of totalitarian systems throughout history, or in the world today. The best example from history would be the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin where he centralized a tremendous amount of power into his leadership position. 

Authoritarian Systems of Government: Government that recognize no limits to their power, but they are constrained by other institutions, such as business, or a church. While it is often debated among political scientists how to classify fascist regimes as seen in Italy, Germany, and Spain that arose in the years preceding WWII, they are probably best labeled as authoritarian systems. The reason for this is that these regimes didn't concentrate power, over the government, the economy, and people's day-to-day lives, to quite the extent that is seen in a totalitarian regime. For example, one could argue that a leader like Hitler in Nazi Germany was restrained in his dealings with large German corporations and groups within society like Germany's Catholic population. 

Constitutional Governments: Governments that are limited both in what they can do (substantive limits) and the methods they can employ (procedural limits). Constitutions help set clear boundaries around the powers of the government. They function in a similar way to the agreed-upon rules of a game. For instance, in a basketball game the rule book states that a player must continuously dribble the ball as they move around the court, and if they begin taking steps without dribbling that is a violation of the rules known as "traveling." The ref would blow the whistle, stop the play, and award the ball to the other team. In the same way, if a president attempts to claim powers that they don't actually have, the US Supreme Court, whose primary job is interpreting the US Constitution, would effectively blow their whistle and inform the president that they have exceeded their constitutional powers, and that they couldn't claim said power(s). In laying out the rules that the government will operate by, a constitution seeks to clearly limit the powers of that government.

Federalists

The Federalists were overwhelmingly the elites of society. They were also by-and-large strong supporters of ratification of the US Constitution. They also tended to live in cities across the thirteen states. Not surprisingly, when it came to decisions about who should lead this new nation, these elites thought that naturally they were the best choice. They were also deeply concerned about the potential danger posed by "excessive democracy." This is the idea that too much democracy represents a great danger to the United States. A lot of this was to be expected in the sense that many of these elites looked down on the educations and political knowledge of those in the classes below them. If you gave them too much political power surely they would run the country into the ground. Much of their support for the US Constitution and a pivot to federalism came from the fact that they believed a stronger central, or federal government, would be able to more effectively guide economic growth than what was experienced with a weak central government under the Articles of Confederation. 

Antifederalists

Antifederalists were mainly the middle-class and the poor. The antifederalists were for the most part skeptical of this new federal government that was being discussed in the ratification debates. They liked the idea of having more political power concentrated at the local and state level as they had in the confederal system created by the Articles of Confederation. Part of the reason that they were disinclined to support a stronger central government is that they worried that the wealthy would simply buy their way into this new government, and in effect create an oligarchy where the rich and powerful cared only for the interests of their fellow elites, thus ignoring the issues facing the poor and middle-class. They also thought that a distant federal government would be less concerned about the distinct issues facing the people of that particular region within their state. Since they feared a government of the rich, for the rich, and by the rich, they thought that the best government would be populated by middle-class "average" Americans who would look out for everyone's best interests. 

For most of our nation's history (1789-1937), we lived under the system referred to as dual federalism.  This was a system where the federal government was far smaller and less important than the one that we know today.  Under dual federalism the federal government really focused on foreign policy for the most part and left the states alone to a great degree.  The states meanwhile, played a very significant role in people's day-to-day lives.  Cooperative federalism arises in the wake of the Great Depression and FDR's New Deal where the federal government will play a far greater role in the business of the states, and in the American people's daily lives.  In this video I further discuss the history and change from one system to the other.