Lecture Notes: Body Politic, Elites, and Constitutional Theory (copy)
The Body Politic: Variation, Change, and Public Consent
Body metaphor for a nation
A body has arms, a heart, legs, and other parts; all are needed to function. Likewise, a country has a body politic composed of a diverse range of ideas about what the nation is and represents.
Historically, America’s body politic was narrower; today it’s wider and more diverse, but change is not uniform across time.
Shifting the body politic: how events can reconfigure public opinion
9/11 as a potential juncture that could widen government power (surveillance authorities, norms about government access to devices, etc.). The point: after a major crisis, public expectations about government powers can radicalize or expand, but not always permanently.
The COVID-19 pandemic as another potential juncture: could have shifted the body politic by changing views on government intervention, surveillance, and public health mandates.
Why COVID-19 didn’t cause a lasting paradigm shift (according to the lecturer): debates continued (e.g., about mandatory vaccines); nothing about the constitutional framework or public expectations settled definitively; the normalcy of pre-COVID trends largely returned in many sectors (e.g., corporate work structures).
Real-world examples of variation in response: different states and locales experienced the pandemic differently (e.g., the Florida vs. New York experience), illustrating how experimentation with governance and policy can occur across a country and yet leave the overarching public-institution relationship relatively intact.
Elite theory and the making of elites
Elites are people with disproportionate influence in any field (not a single group): technology elites, financial/commercial elites, media/influencers, Hollywood elites, etc.
Elites are not monolithic or fixed; they arise from social arrangements and can come into conflict with one another (e.g., tech vs finance, or regional differences like New York City vs San Francisco).
They are not inherently “natural” or fixed; their power is constrained or enabled by constitutional rules and the political system’s design.
Elites’ influence on public opinion, resources, and politics is persistent, but the formal constraints of the political system shape what elites can actually achieve.
Constitutional parameters: the rules that structure elite power
The question: what constitutes American government? The rules include the Constitution and its formal and informal constraints, not just the visible institutions (Congress, presidency).
The idea that governance is a competitive arena among elites, but governed by rules that enable peaceful coexistence and competition.
The role of a constitutional culture: without a robust contract and enforceable norms, elites may resort to coercive power or intimidation rather than stable, peaceful governance.
International comparison: why this matters
In many other countries (as discussed in the course), elites face weaker or more easily ignored constitutional constraints; the American system’s checks and balances aim to prevent this, though they are imperfect.
The UK example (constitutional framework and parliament’s power) illustrates a different balance: there is no single written constitution; instead, a collection of precedents, charters, and parliamentary actions shapes governance; Parliament can interpret and redefine the constitutional framework over time.
The English Constitutional Framework: Precedents, Not One Book
No single written document: The United Kingdom lacks a pocket constitution in the sense of a single formal, codified text.
Instead, the constitutional framework is built from charters, agreements, pronouncements, and parliamentary actions accumulated over time.
Precedent plays a central role in interpreting the constitution, more so than in the United States, where a written constitution with a powerful Supreme Court is more central.
Parliament and representation
Parliament (including the House of Commons and the House of Lords) has significant power and interprets constitutional norms; there isn’t a strong centralized constitutional court with the same degree of power as in the United States.
The existence of multiple charters and checks (including representation mechanisms) shapes governance, rather than a single codified document.
Monarchy, republic, and the American question
The class discussion noted that the original question for American settlers wasn’t simply “is monarchy better than a republic?”; rather, it was about whether they were being treated as compatriots and whether their property and security were protected.
Takeaway for the Canadian-US/UK comparison
The structural differences illustrate how constitutions—codified or not—shape the balance of power, the role of elites, and how easily a nation can adapt to or resist shifts in public opinion.
Primary Readings: The Declaration of Independence
The “we” of the Declaration
Discussion prompt: Who is the “we” being referred to? The people? The Americans? The colonists? The inhabitants to be represented?
The unalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness
These rights are presented as inalienable and foundational; the discussion connected them to John Locke’s theory of natural rights and the social contract.
Question raised: Why these particular rights, and where do they originate? The dialogue suggested they are tied to the social contract and the philosopher’s view of natural rights (see Locke below).
The clause about changing governments
“Prudence” and “experience” are invoked to justify not changing governments for light and transient causes, framing revolution as a serious, principled action rather than a rash impulse.
The analogy: beginning a divorce letter with the claim that marriage should be sacred; the threshold for dissolution is deliberately high and pragmatic.
The grievances against the Crown
Key grievances include:
“He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislatures.”
“Interference with the law; judges … appointed to govern the territories, but the king interferes in the judicial process.”
“Obstructed population growth by restricting the naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migration thither.”
“Impositions and taxes without representation; enforcement of restraints on immigration tied to economic and strategic needs.”
These grievances are presented as practical, material problems of governance, not abstract abstractions.
Economic and demographic rationales behind immigration grievances
The passage on immigration is tied to economic growth: settlers wanted more people to farm, produce, and sustain the colonies; the argument is that more inhabitants would support the economy and security of the colonies.
This connects to the “growth of the economy” as a motive for population expansion and naturalization policies.
The life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness sequence and Locke
The discussion traced the phrase to classical liberal foundations and the social contract; Locke’s natural rights are the basis for the Declaration’s claims.
Important correction in the conversation: Lockean rights are often summarized as life, liberty, and property; speakers noted that property is central to the social contract in Locke’s framework.
The social contract and the material basis of political obligation
The dialogue emphasizes that the social contract is not merely abstract; it is rooted in real-world grievances and the practical need for security, predictability, and economic viability.
Martin Diamond’s reading of the Declaration and its implications
Diamond’s interpretation: the revolution was grounded in sober, mature calculations about freedom and legitimacy, not mere passion.
The revolution is portrayed as balancing liberty and legality with order and continuity; it was not a radical break governed by mere emotion.
Diamond juxtaposes this with other revolutions (French, Russian) that were driven by different notions of virtue and terror.
The link to Tocqueville
The discussion foreshadows a comparison with Tocqueville on how American institutions sustain liberty with order and how revolutions relate to democracy and virtue.
The materialist versus idealist reading of the Declaration
The class discussed whether the Declaration’s framers were primarily driven by ideals (universal rights) or by practical, material concerns (economic and political security).
Martin Diamond: sober expectations about revolution and the role of virtue
Diamond’s core claim about American revolution
The revolutionary movement was driven by a mature taste for freedom, not a vague instinct for independence.
It proceeded with love of order and legality; revolution was not fueled by disorderly passion.
Juxtaposition with Tocqueville and revolutions
Diamond’s framework contrasts diametrically with revolutions that are driven by emotion and violent upheaval; the “orderly” American revolution avoided or contained passion-driven excesses.
The tension between virtue and terror
The phrase from Robespierre: “The spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue; the spring of revolutions is virtue and terror. Terror without virtue is useless; virtue without terror is useless.”
Why terror appears in revolutionary contexts: to compel compliance, eliminate countervailing power, and reconfigure the social order toward a new political equilibrium.
Robespierre’s revolution sought to construct virtue through state power, including violence against aristocracy and vestiges of heritage.
Comparison with Madison: skepticism about virtue as a legal basis for government
Madison’s Federalist 51: the famous line, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” If angels governed, neither external nor internal controls would be needed.
The framers cannot rely on moral virtue alone; institutions must create incentives and restraints to control both the governed and the rulers.
The structural design (checks and balances, separation of powers) is essential to prevent factional domination and to manage human self-interest within political life.
The question of democracy in Diamond’s interpretation
Were the revolutionaries fighting for democracy? The class set up this question for Thursday, inviting discussion about whether the movement aimed at a democratic governance model or a different political project.
Key Concepts and Terms to Review
Body politic: the composite of a nation’s diverse political ideas and actors; its size and inclusivity can change over time.
Elites: groups or individuals with disproportionate influence; not a fixed “1%”; includes technology, finance, media, entertainment, and other sectors; power is shaped by constitutional rules and social norms.
Constitutional parameters: the rules and norms that structure political power, including the balance between stability and reform; in the UK, a non-codified constitution built on precedent; in the US, a written constitution with checks and balances.
Social contract: the foundational idea that governments exist to secure natural rights (often cited as life, liberty, and property) and derive legitimacy from an implicit bargain with the governed.
Natural/unalienable rights: rights that pre-exist government and cannot be legitimately taken away by authorities; Locke’s framing emphasizes property as a central inalienable right in the early modern liberal tradition.
Liberalism and classical liberalism: political philosophy that stresses individual rights, limited government, and rule of law as the basis for legitimate political authority.
Virtue and terror: a classical tension in revolutionary governance; debate about whether a government can or should cultivate virtue through coercive power or terror.
Federalist 51 (Madison): a foundational text arguing for institutional design to control government and to prevent the aggregation of power; the famous line about angels and the necessity of checks and controls.
Declaration of Independence (core passages): the call to government legitimacy, the listing of grievances against the Crown, and the assertion of rights as the basis for political legitimacy and eventual independence.
Revolutionary democracy vs. other forms of legitimacy: the question of whether revolutions are aimed at creating democratic governance or some other political order, and what role popular sovereignty plays in Diamond’s analysis.
Connections to Foundational Principles and Real-World Relevance
Foundational theories of government underpin debates about legitimacy, rights, and the use of power: Locke’s social contract informs the Declaration; Madison’s checks-and-balances framework informs the structure of the US Constitution; Diamond’s sober, pragmatic reading emphasizes the political practicality of revolution and governance.
Real-world implications of “body politic” shifts
Events like 9/11 and COVID-19 illustrate how crises can reshape public expectations of government power, even if long-term constitutional culture resists irreversible change.
The comparison with other countries highlights how constitutional design (codified vs non-codified; strong courts vs parliamentary sovereignty) affects elites’ behavior and the stability of governance.
Methodological takeaway
Studying American government requires examining not only institutions (Congress, presidency, courts) but also culture, discourse, and the dynamics of elites and public opinion.
Ethical and practical implications
Balancing security and liberty; ensuring that the government’s actions in crisis periods are legally constrained and democratically accountable.
Considering whether revolutions should be driven by virtue, passion, legality, or some combination, and what that implies for policy stability and human rights.
Short-Answer Prompts and Study Questions (to discuss on Thursday)
Was the American Revolution primarily a democratic revolution, or something else? How does Diamond’s interpretation influence your view?
How do the concepts of “virtue” and “terror” illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of revolutionary governance?
In what ways do the UK’s uncodified constitutional practices and parliamentary sovereignty compare with the US system of checks and balances? What lessons do these comparisons offer for understanding elite power and public consent?
How do crises like 9/11 or COVID-19 test the resilience of a nation’s body politic and constitutional framework? Can such events catalyze lasting change, or do they tend to generate return-to-normalcy dynamics?
How does the concept of the social contract relate to current debates about immigration, naturalization, and economic policy? What are the practical implications for policy and legitimacy?
Quotes to Remember
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” — Madison, Federalist 51
“The spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue. The spring of revolutionary government is virtue and terror. Terror without which virtue is blind. Virtue without which terror is toothless.” — Robespierre (contextual reference in discussion)
“Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” — Declaration of Independence (reason for cautious approach to revolution)
“There is no one written document called the English constitution.” — On the UK constitutional framework (emphasizing precedent and charters)
“The constitution is a contract.” — Concept emphasized in class discussions about constitutional culture and credible commitments