“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”[1] These famous words from Lord Acton of Britain have resonated throughout history, being applied to various politicians and figures when it became clear that they had lost comprehension of the mandate of power and that the responsibility of those with power to represent those without was misunderstood. The concept of power has been one that has affected humankind since the very dawn of time. In fact, one can reasonably assume that an extensive discussion took place to decide which caveperson would be head caveperson. With this project, I hope to explore the disconnect between those with political power and those without. I will also provide suggestions on how that relationship could be better and stronger, focusing in on increased transparency and accountability, along with some policy adjustments. The existing dynamics and relationships may be the foundation of political power, but they also lead to abuses of position and complacency from the ground up. By highlighting specific instances of political power abuse, I will offer adjustments that aim to alleviate those negative repercussions. The three case studies of this project will offer specific instances of political power abuse and then this hub will aim to present a unifying theory of political power and how to avoid abusing it. Before we can present a roadmap for the future, it is important to first reflect on the past, especially when the intent of the founders of the United States is consistently being brought up in discussions of political power.

 

            Imagine for a moment that you are living in the 18th century, the 1780s to be exact. You are a Founding Father of the United States of America and you have gathered with your colleagues to craft a Constitution that will replace the failed Articles of Confederation, ideally fixing the discovered problems of authority in the process. What are you thinking about? Or to be more exact, when are you thinking about? Yes, the Constitution was intended to fix immediate problems, but then what? Did the Founding Fathers realize how long the document they wrote would last? Flash-forward to 2015, the present. Have the powers delegated to various elements of government changed in the 230 years since they were outlined? Has political power evolved beyond the written word of the Constitution? So much has been discussed about the intent of the Founding Fathers, but I would be remiss to not at least touch on that vein of academia in so much as it relates to my exploration as a whole.

 

            In Federalist No. 48, James Madison writes, “power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.”[2] This political power he is referring to is the outlined powers of the United States Constitution, which he is advocating for. It is reassuring to see that even in the 18th century unrestrained power was seen as undesirable, although that might be less due to an understanding of the nature of man and more due to the witnessing of the British Empire’s overreach. Madison, in confronting the issue of overreaching power, addresses failures of the past:

 

Will it be sufficient to mark, with precision, the boundaries of these departments, in the constitution of the government, and to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power? This is the security, which appears to have been principally relied on by the compilers of most of the American constitutions. But experience assures us, that the efficacy of the provision has been greatly overrated; and that some more adequate defense is indispensably necessary for the more feeble, against the more powerful, members of the government. The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.[3]

 

Madison’s views on power and the federal government will come into play throughout this paper, but it is clear that he was in favor of stricter definitions of power, as well as a distinct system of checks and balances from within. In addition, he recognized the true source of political power:

 

As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others.[4]

 

But Madison cannot commit to the ideal that the people are to be consulted on matters of political power, specifically the adjustment of such power divisions within government. His reasoning rests upon a fear of partisanship within government affecting the views of the people:

 

The passions, therefore, not the reason, of the public would sit in judgment. But it is the reason, alone, of the public that ought to control and regulate the government. The passions ought to be controlled and regulated by the government. We found…that mere declarations in the written constitution are not sufficient to restrain the several departments within their legal rights. It appears in this, that occasional appeals to the people would be neither a proper nor an effectual provision for that purpose.[5]

 

The Founding Fathers may have been worried that the government would influence the people, but in reality, they should have been worried that the government would alienate the people. This is the sad truth that has come to pass, but is also reversible.

 

            You are probably wondering where the unifying theory on political power is, now that I have extrapolated on the Founding Fathers who have been dead for centuries and given an overview of my case studies. The only thing I can say is that when I first set out on this project, I was confident that I would be able to accomplish that with the work I was doing. Unfortunately, that was a task that proved to be too much. There is an extreme difference between recognizing and understanding a problem like political power, and providing a fix for it. Furthermore, it would take lifetimes to account for all of the variance a thorough study of political power would have to take into account. For instance, there are national level politics, state level, local level, etc. And what about the individual actors? There is so much more to think about than an initial observer would believe.

 

            One of my case studies examines racial divisions amongst those with political power through the specific lens of African Americans, but that is only one example of a racial identity that matters in terms of oppression. What about Asian Americans? Hispanics? There is so much untapped research that needs to be uncovered and brought to light. And race is only one of many identities that warrant examination in relation to political power. Those with political power also tend to oppress members of the LGBT community when it comes to rights, particularly the ability to get married. Although it would seem like this treatment would alienate that community from the political process, the constant threat of discriminatory legislation has the effect of encourage more activism from that oppressed community. Taking it one step further, gender can also play a role in all of this. Women are statistically less represented in Congress, a result of years of subjugation to male counterparts. These are only a handful of examples of social identities that could contribute to a discussion on political power and if you think that all of this still makes a comprehensive study on political power possible, let me just remind you that intersectionality adds another dimension of consideration. How do the political interactions of straight white female compare to the interactions of a gay black man? These questions, and more like them, are crucial to consider, but even in a larger discussion on political power only make up a fraction of the societal elements worth examining.

 

             Despite the seemingly impossibility of developing a comprehensive fix for the issues raised throughout my case studies, I still came up with suggestions that in my opinion, and in the opinion of some of the research I read, would at least point this country in the correct direction of progress. The first case study revolves around the role of money in politics and how in the modern era, that is increasingly being equated with speech. The voice of the people is consistently being denied in favor of big business, corporations with special interests and a desire to have politicians aligned with them. With court rulings like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it is even easier for corporations to influence the electorate, especially now that they have the same right to free speech as people, just with more money to spend to practice it. Furthermore, once politicians are elected, the looming prospect of reelection forces them to maintain private sector connections to retain big business support, letting those outside interests creep into backroom negotiations on legislation. The research shows that it is not the actual votes that are affected by money, but instead it is the behind the scenes process of crafting legislation that is affected. My suggestion on how to change the power money has is to prevent big business from being able to contribute to political campaigns and reframe the political field as one centered around the issues, not around who can afford more advertising. That is how to reach the American people without the interference of money compromising the integrity of the American electoral process.

 

            My second case study has to do with the increased polarization that has occurred within Congress in the last few decades. The lack of coming together for the betterment of America is frustrating to the American people, the same people who have sent representatives to Washington DC to make a difference. The gridlock slows progress in this country to a screeching halt, particularly in terms of legislation passed. The moderate voice in America is growing while being stifled by the radically ideological voices in the country. The stark partisanship that runs rampant through the country must be stopped. Bipartisanship lets all Americans feel represented rather than alienated by one-sided legislation. The method I suggest to begin the long road to accountability is to change the primary system in the country because closed primaries, aka what most primaries are presently, increase the chances of extreme ideologues being sent on to the general election. Getting rid of closed primaries would lead to more moderate candidates having a greater chance of making it through to the general election and getting elected. This would bring Congress back towards the center and let more progress be made that represents the entirety of America, not just those whose beliefs are represented by the majority.

 

            The third and final case study is one that I have mentioned earlier in this piece. An examination on how typically oppressed groups interact with political power. I chose to focus on blacks in America because of a resurgence of oppression I have noticed in recent times, specifically increased police brutality and incarceration. African Americans have been alienated from the political sphere for the entirety of American history. First came slavery, then came Jim Crow, then inherent prejudices of white Americans. Yes, there has been some progress, but on the whole, white Americans have subjugated nonwhite Americans in order to remain dominant, whether with conscious prejudice and racism, or subconsciously, with misguided legislation that indiscriminately affects nonwhite minorities in this country. The research shows that these oppressive acts have the effect of restricting nonwhite participation in the political sphere and interaction with political power. There is also truth to the claim that although there is not a comparable amount of nonwhite interactions with politics at a national level, there is increased activity at a local level. While this is not a replacement for national political activism, it is a testament to the endurance of the minority spirit in this country. My suggestion for how to right the wrongs is a bare minimum one, as I am not one to pretend that I can solve the racism that plagues this country. My suggestion is to radically increase education across the country. The feelings of racial superiority are not inherent to the American spirit, they are taught by generations who have failed to learn the lessons of humanity. More education leads to increased awareness of the social injustices consistently present in this country. That awareness can lead to real change and hopefully, real, tangible, and demonstrated progress for minorities in America.

 

            So there you have it, my attempt to provide remedies to a lasting problem in the United States from a variety of angles. There are so many remaining angles that one could dedicate an entire lifetime to researching it all and maybe, just maybe, they would be able to produce a comprehensive study of political power. It is also important to note that the definition itself of political power is changing, as are its practices, its effects, its causes, everything. The field is a moving target, not able to be pinned down for a complete examination. For instance, an examination of political power through the identity case study I completed might look different if I did it before 2008, when this country elected the first African-American President. When studying political power, it is crucial to not only understand it, but also offer suggestions on how to fix misuses of it that are discovered. It is key that the relationship between those in power and those on the ground is transparent, healthy, and strong. When secrets and corruption affect that relationship, everyone suffers. Power will always have a role in society, but it does not always have to corrupt the way Lord Acton described.

 

 

 

[1] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/lordacton109401.html

 

[2] Madison, James. “Federalist No. 48”

 

[3] Ibid.

 

[4] Madison, James. “Federalist No. 49”

 

[5] Ibid.